THE FUN police are at it again. In their never-ending quest to ensure everyone else's misery, conservatives in Pound, Virginia have outlawed dancing in their town. Their justification? "There's bound to be trouble when you mix drinking, country music and dancing," said Danny Stanley, member of the Pound Town Council (http://www.libertarianrock.com/topics/censorship/dancing_win_va.html).
A similar law, which Virginia courts struck down last year, said that only those who were "proper" and "of good moral character" could obtain a permit for dancing. The absurdity of this should be painfully evident.
This situation is easy to dismiss as a bunch of self-righteous backwoods conservatives who ignore the Bill of Rights and impose their moral and ethical values on everyone. But many people do not see anything wrong with legislating morality, which poses the question: How far should the government go in controlling what we say and do?
|
It comes down to freedom. Our government's main priority should be to protect the freedom of U.S. citizens. We should allow people the freedom to do what they want, as long as it doesn't infringe on others' freedoms.
Now, extreme examples of this issue show us that we cannot take a concrete stand on morality and law. If the government determines what's ethical, that can lead to bizarre laws such as the ban on dancing in Pound. But at the other extreme, what if the government was to take no moral stances at all? One could argue that making murder a crime is a moral call. So it's obvious that the government should take some steps to determine what's right and what isn't.
One argument is to outlaw or restrict activities and actions that negatively affect others. For instance, killing someone will most certainly hurt others, whereas dancing is a relatively harmless activity.
But while these examples are relatively clear-cut, there are many gray areas in allowing the government to determine what should be considered moral and ethical. What about divorce? This arguably has a negative effect on society. Some contend that allowing married couples to divorce puts a strain on their children, hurts their extended families and eventually yields many negative consequences.
But this runs counter to the ideals of freedom and the pursuit of happiness. If two people are happier ending their marriage vows, should they have to stay together to protect the mental well-being of the family, even if they're unhappy?
On the other hand, we have speed limits and laws which prohibit drinking and driving. These are laws that may restrict people's freedoms. But in doing so, they ensure the safety of many more people. The same can be said for our general system of laws that prohibits murder, assault and other violent crimes.
Obviously we cannot let the government be the sole judge of morality. If we did, conservatives would have everyone adhering to their ethical and religious beliefs, while liberals would mandate political correctness. There is obvious danger in giving the government absolute moral power, whether it be in the town of Pound, Virginia or in fanatically religious countries in the Middle East.
We need to have some foundation for a moral society, which is why we have laws in the first place and why we punish murderers, thieves and rapists. But legislators should refrain from moralizing and trying to force their value system on everyone else. The farthest the government should go into legislating ethics is to maintain order and ensure the protection of everyone's freedoms.
In the end, the paramount concern must be on individual freedom. On one hand, we must allow people the pursuit of happiness, whether it be by dancing, marrying or getting divorced. But at the same time, we should decide what is moral by evaluating how it affects others' freedoms. By killing someone, you obviously are taking away his freedom and right to the pursuit of happiness. Therefore, the government has a responsibility in more than one way to protect the rights of all citizens.
In some unclear situations we have, lawmakers need to be able to make judgement calls. But we should not ask these politicians to be the absolute determinants of society's morals.
Keep freedom the foremost priority in passing restrictive laws. Conservatives and liberals who try to legislate morality will encounter a slippery slope that's difficult to get off.
(Brian Cook is a Cavalier Daily associate editor. He can be reached at bcook@cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 15 hours agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | YesterdayAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
YOUNIS: Why every U.Va. student should say yes to English
By Ayat Younis | 5 days agoEvery student at the University, regardless of their primary field of study, can professionally and academically benefit from engaging with the English department.
