Moral laws are both possible and necessary

A common complaint surrounding controversial social issues is that the government cannot legislate morality. This statement can have one of two meanings. Either the user of this maxim is claiming the state cannot make moral people with laws or that moral laws are impossible.

The latter statement is the easiest to disprove. It would be odd to challenge a law prohibiting murder on the grounds that the ordinance was “legislating morality.”

The government forms two kinds of regulations: moral and amoral. A law dictating the width of railway gauges is a rule without moral justification. It is simply the standard codified by the state for the streamlined use of transportation.

There are no moral justifications for the gauge to be an inch wider or not. These types of regulations can quickly balloon in scope and constitute a large portion of laws on the books.

The arguable true center of gravity of the legal code is the moral law. Violations of interstate commerce clauses take a back seat in the minds of most when faced with murder, assault or theft. If the state cannot make laws regarding morality, it is no longer the state.

The government is the entity which has the monopoly on the use of violence and the dictates of moral law. If a given authority abdicates this responsibility, the polity under its care will seek better guardians of their future security.

The government can only remain legitimate in the minds of its people as long as it is willing to enforce, often with violence, some kind of morality. As such, the state can, and must, legislate morality as a matter of survival. Now, one may return to the second meaning of the phrase: that the government cannot create moral citizens.

This claim is true but used incorrectly. Does anyone believe that, in the absence of laws prohibiting murder, no one would commit murder? One’s answer to this question likely rests with whether one considers humans innately good or evil.

In my opinion, observed human behavior in anarchic situations can only lend credibility to the latter conclusion. Without the government wielding the sword, the worst among us would seize upon the vacuum to commit all manner of atrocities.

Granted, the state is capable and likely to commit its own heinous acts given that it is comprised of that same innately evil humanity. Regardless, the government functions, often imperfectly, as both the dictator and guarantor of the moral standard. Whether the citizens comply with moral laws out of conviction or fear of consequences, the result is the same.

The state is incapable of forcing the masses to be one or the other category. There will always be especially evil individuals at large.

Should moral laws be repealed because these people cannot be brought to internalize the morality behind them? The obvious answer is no.

When pundits trumpet the saying, “You can’t legislate morality,” this truism ultimately has no bearing on the considerations of governance. I believe what these commentators are really saying is, “Please don’t legislate a morality different than mine.”

This is a legitimate political concern, but it is almost always cloaked in the previous ill-conceived pontification.

Moral laws are both possible and necessary. If this is true, can a plebiscite on a moral issue like abortion be legitimate?

Can moral laws be derived from the people over the state? If it’s true that laws cannot make moral people, can those same people be capable of making moral decisions on laws? Does anyone genuinely believe the people could vote for a reduction in material benefit in the name of moral virtue?

It is my formal prediction the majority of the populace will vote for whatever outcome benefits them materially over all other considerations.

Many will approach the ballot box with strong moral considerations. Many more will vote with their desire for convenience. The latter will always be the majority. The majority wins elections.