How should govt determine right and wrong?

[idealisttotheend]

We now have minorities dictating rules and lifestyles that the rest of us are just supposed to accept.

I think that the real issue here is that you are being asked to accept these lifestyles for other people but not for yourself. And you still have the right to convince people of the pros or cons of any given lifestyle you just can't use the law to force people not to conduct themselves in certain ways. The net effect hopefully is that there is not as much of an imposition on you as the imposition that is removed from the minority in question.

As for the rest, I think that a lot of people are frustrated with judicial activism. There is a big change from the days when courts were more respectable of the elected reps intention with making the laws. But then consider that the politicians have not been particularily good at protecting minority rights and judges have been. Democracy's flaw is that it allows 51% to impose it's will on the other 49% no matter the morality of the 51%'s position. So where to draw the line?

Electing judges is counter productive since that would just effectively make them politicians who interpret the law. This would solve nothing.

[caesar]

Electing judges is counter productive since that would just effectively make them politicians who interpret the law. This would solve nothing.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Definitely, we need judges who are well trained in law not someone who wins popularity contests.

The general public is not the best judge of a judges qualifications. We must leave that to the law experts.

If you don't like an interpretation of a law; elect politicians who are able to change that law; if you can.

[The Terrible Sweal]

We now have minorities dictating rules and lifestyles that the rest of us are just supposed to accept.

As I recall it was the democratically elected federal government and the democratically elected governments of nine provinces that created the Charter. So I don't understand how you can say it is minorities 'dictating' Charter rights.

Do you have even a single example of minorities dictating a lifestyle to you??

[DAC]

For once I agree with the Terrible Sweal:

It is not the government's function to 'decide what is right or wrong'

. But unfortunately, only to that point.

When he says

the government has no business concerning itself with 'morality'. Government must only concern itself with what is effective in acheiving the goals of the society. As with individuals in all walks of life, people in government should personally behave ethically, including in their working-life decisions. But government as an institution has no means separate from the will of individuals and society an it would therefor be presumptuous and wrongheaded for it to purport to establish some morality.

he is outlawing laws against theft, murder, false witness .... These are all expressions of morality.

It is not the government’s task to establish morality, but it is the government’s task to apply it where necessary to guard the society in general and individuals in the society. The question that we have to deal with is how the government decides what is the appropriate moral standard.

Once choice that has been common in history is to say that in practice, those with the power can do what they want, and will, so that’s the way it is. Might makes right. Unfortunately that makes it hard for us to condemn Stalin & Hitler and Genghis Khan & Bush & the little guy from the Gaspé. We don’t approve of “might makes right” when it’s the Hell’s Angels hammering in our door.

A second option is the more common view in our society, that the will of the people determines what is right. But the will of the people fluctuates with a breath of wind. Depending on the way a poll is worded, 70% of people absolutely oppose abortion, or 70% absolutely support it. Of course, that’ mainly semantics. But it illustrates the reality. A few years ago, gambling and lotteries were widely rejected. Today they are widely accepted. What made you a hero last year makes you a criminal this year. If there is anything obvious, it is that the will of the people is not a standard, and arguably rarely good. After all, it was the will of the people that upheld slavery, that denied women the right to hold property or to vote. Are we to say that such things were good, right, acceptable, when they were widely supported? If so, those who opposed them were evil ...

It comes back to the fact that the only secure and stable base for morality (or ethical living, or determining what is good and evil) is God’s teaching. There is no scientific principle which says something is good or evil. From the point of view of science it simply is - a murder is neither good nor evil, but simply an event. If there were no god, there would be neither right nor wrong. Given the wide variety of religious views, we may struggle to decide which is the truth. One state may choose a different base than another. But in the end, every moral view has a religious base. Even the moral views of those who are atheists began on a religious base and were borrowed by the atheists.

The question of the thread is how government should determine right or wrong. The only answer which is stable, the only answer which allows meaningful challenge to wrongdoing by the government, is that the government should apply the teachings of God to protect the people of the land.

[Big Blue Machine]

Ok

[Black Dog]

The question of the thread is how government should determine right or wrong. The only answer which is stable, the only answer which allows meaningful challenge to wrongdoing by the government, is that the government should apply the teachings of God to protect the people of the land.

Which teachings?

[The Terrible Sweal]

For once I agree with the Terrible Sweal:

It is not the government's function to 'decide what is right or wrong'

. But unfortunately, only to that point.

When he says

the government has no business concerning itself with 'morality'. Government must only concern itself with what is effective in acheiving the goals of the society. As with individuals in all walks of life, people in government should personally behave ethically, including in their working-life decisions. But government as an institution has no means separate from the will of individuals and society an it would therefor be presumptuous and wrongheaded for it to purport to establish some morality.

he is outlawing laws against theft, murder, false witness .... These are all expressions of morality.

Not in the least. Theft is outlawed because of the pragmatic necessity to protect property rights. Whether a particular theft is 'moral' or not depends very much on the factual context. Murder and 'false witness' prohibitions are also pragmatic necesities (which is why they were devised by the ancient hebrews (and others) in the first place.

It is not the government’s task to establish morality, but it is the government’s task to apply it where necessary to guard the society in general and individuals in the society.

Not in the least. Your 'morality' and that of someone else may differ quite substantially and the government's task is not to choose one or the other as 'moral' but rather to adopt a pragmatically useful regime as directed by the citizenry at large. To the extent the citizenry is animated by common moral sentiment the government may be directed to adopt them by democratic impulse, but that to is pragmatic rather than 'moral'. Indeed, DAC, I defy you to provide a useful meaning for the term 'moral' at all.

If there is anything obvious, it is that the will of the people is not a standard, and arguably rarely good.

Except for fact demonstrable through reason, there is no other meaningful standard than that of 'the people'. Who, other than the people, is constrained by the standard? Who, other than the people, does the standard serve? Accordingly, who, other than the people, should be the reference for the standard.

...It comes back to the fact that the only secure and stable base for morality (or ethical living, or determining what is good and evil) is God’s teaching.

Stuff and nonsense. Who interprets the teaching? Which teaching should be adopted? Until theists can answer such questions sensibly all the appeals to God's authority are appeals to mere personal aesthetic. (Which, I scarcly need point out, is hardly a basis for any sort of useful standards.)

If there were no god, there would be neither right nor wrong. 

Crap.

Given the wide variety of religious views, we may struggle to decide which is the truth. One state may choose a different base than another. But in the end, every moral view has a religious base.

Such vapid assertion doesn't merit analysis; mere denial suffices. So... no, you are wrong.

Even the moral views of those who are atheists began on a religious base and were borrowed by the atheists.

False.

The question of the thread is how government should determine right or wrong. The only answer which is stable, the only answer which allows meaningful challenge to wrongdoing by the government, is that the government should apply the teachings of God to protect the people of the land.

Which just brings you back again to the same problem. Which teachings? Selected how? Applied to the concerns of the moment by whose interpretation?

Can you even begin to answer these very basic questions? I doubt it.