Who Defines Morality?

Anyone reading my hubs will recognize some of the arguments used in this one because my biggest passion is protecting every individual's right to live his/her life as s/he sees fit— even if I find what that person believes to be reprehensible. I can already here some arguing that that means I support a murderer's right to murder if he sees fit. But that ignores the fact that in order to support EVERY individual's right to live his/her life as s/he sees fit, it means that no one must interfere with another's right to do the same. Therefore, I totally support laws that make it illegal to interfere in another's life, like laws that prevent rape, murder, theft, drunk driving (because you're raising someone's risk of dying without their consent), etc. The problem is that far too many people think that illegal and immoral are the same thing— or at least should be the same thing. Do I believe it is immoral to kill someone else no matter what? Yes. Some people believe it is morally okay to kill someone else if certain conditions are met. Those conditions range from it being a time of war to self-defense to defense of one's belongings to being looked at the wrong way. (The last refers to Jimmy Swaggart's claim that he'd kill a gay man who looked at him the wrong way and not feel as if he did anything wrong. See link.) So who exactly defines what is moral and what is not moral?

The simple answer is that we all define our own morality based on our own experiences and beliefs. Those experiences and beliefs are shaped/influenced by our family, our friends, our religious/spiritual path and the society in which we live. But in the end, we all define our own morals. There will be those who argue that God defines morality, but this ignores the fact that those who argue such have chosen their own faith and therefore have chosen to accept God's definition of what is moral.

However, what is important to note is that it is not the government's job to define what is moral. This has been stated many times in US Supreme Court rulings, most recently in the Lawrence v Texas ruling. (Source) The founding father's recognized this when they penned the Declaration of Independence. They wrote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[...]

What is the right to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" if not the freedom to live one's life in the manner one see's fit? And notice what comes immediately after this. That to guarantee these rights, governments are created and empowered by those they govern! It's not the governments job to tell the people what they can or cannot do to find their happiness! It is the government's job to protect every individual's right to do just that! And that means it is the government's job to prevent someone from interfering in any other individual's right to live his/her life as s/he sees fit. The way the government does that is to pass laws that make such interference illegal. The US Constitution does not empower the government to define what is moral, only what is legal.

So when the moral codes of two individuals clash, who gets to decide who "wins"?

It appears to be a very complicated issue, but it really isn't. If, by adhering to your moral code, you violate someone else's right to live their life as they see fit, then you've overstepped your bounds. Let me illustrate what I'm talking about by discussing a couple issues.

Let's talk about abortion. If your moral code says that life begins at the moment of conception, then you should not have an abortion. But if you then prevent someone else from having an abortion, you are violating her right to live her life as she sees fit. And you've overstepped your bounds. You are forcing her to live according to your definition of what is moral. There are those who argue that a woman getting an abortion is interfering with the unborn fetus' right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". But those right are guaranteed only for living human beings, not for "potential" human beings. There is no way to determine if there is a human "spirit" or "soul" in an unborn fetus. The only point that is clearly evident that does not rely on personal belief is at the moment of birth or at the moment the first breath is drawn, whichever comes first. Up to that point, no unborn fetus should have any rights, no matter how close to birth it is. To allow otherwise will inevitably mean that every woman who ever suffers a miscarriage will be investigated for possible infanticide and that anyone who might have caused a woman to have a miscarriage (for example, by bumping into her and causing her fall down) must be investigated for at the very least involuntary manslaughter. (See the link entitled "An Effective End to Abortion" below for a more detailed discussion of this issue.) Laws banning abortion are imposing the moral views of some (even if it is the majority) on the individual, something that is not permitted by the US Constitution.

In a related matter, there are pharmacists who refuse to fill prescriptions for the "morning after" pill (which usually prevents pregnancy by not allowing a fertilized egg to attach to the wall of the uterus). There are some who even refuse to fill prescriptions for birth control pills. (See links below.) These pharmacists say that dispensing such prescriptions violates their religious beliefs. But their religious beliefs should not be allowed to prevent someone else from living her life the way she wants to! (And I use "she/her" here because the emergency contraceptive pills and birth control pills are used by women.) Dispensing a prescription for emergency contraceptives does not prevent any pharmacist from believing that abortion is wrong. It does not force them to have an abortion— and they have no right to try to force others not to have an abortion. In fact, failure to dispense the emergency contraceptive may actually cause another woman to have an abortion. These pharmacists knew coming into the game that they might be asked to fill a prescription that violated their moral code. Yet they chose to become pharmacists anyway. Now they want to change the rules in the middle of the game. That's like playing a game of Monopoly and changing the rules so they don't have to pay luxury tax if they land on it. What if they refuse to fill diet pill prescriptions because it's going to allow someone to eat what they want without gaining weight and that's slothful, which is one of the seven deadly sins? Or they refuse to fill a prescription for a stop-smoking patch because they believe smoking is a sin? The scary thing is that lawmakers are passing laws protecting these pharmacists from legal penalties for failure to do their duty.

Let's move onto the issue of gay marriage. When Massachusetts became the first state to legalize gay marriage (something that should never have been considered "illegal" in the first place any more than slavery should have ever been considered "legal"), there were some clerks who refused to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, saying that their faith considered homosexuality immoral and therefore, they could not be forced to violate their religious dictates. Well, that argument would be valid only if they were the one's applying for the marriage license! They can still believe that being gay is immoral, but as employees of the state, they are not permitted to infringe on the rights of others to exercise their rights by marrying. Can you imagine the hoopla if, as recently happened in Louisiana, the clerks in Massachusetts had denied interracial couples a marriage license because they felt interracial marriages were immoral? By issuing a marriage license to a homosexual couple, the clerk is in no way forced to believe that homosexuality is moral. But by his/her refusing to issue that license, they are imposing on the gay couple's right to live their life as they see fit.

Let's move on to gay parenting. A lesbian couple goes to the only clinic their insurance will pay for to become pregnant. Their doctor tells them that she won't do the insemination because homosexuality is against her religion. Doing the insemination has nothing to do with homosexuality! If the woman who wanted to be inseminated had gone in by herself, the doctor would have never known she was a lesbian. Chances are the doctor has already inseminated some lesbians who did just that. What gives that doctor the right to tell two women they have no right to be parents? To force them, for however short a period of time, to live according to the doctor's moral code of conduct? If the good doctor didn't want to have to do something that went against her moral beliefs, then she should have found another specialty.

I work as a nurse aide. I cannot refuse to take care of a resident because I disagree with their religion or their moral code of conduct. I can't refuse to take care of a resident who is verbally or physically abusive to me! I can't refuse to take care of a resident who I may know was once convicted of child sexual abuse. I can't refuse to take care of a resident who thinks I'm immoral because I'm gay. Nor should I be able to because when it comes right down to it, what those people think or do in their lives does not in any way, shape or form affect my own moral code of conduct. It does not force me to change my beliefs in any way or to violate my beliefs in any way because my beliefs apply ONLY to my life and my actions and my thoughts. If I want to be able to choose who I take care of, I can go into home health or private aide work and choose to serve only those people I want. But when I opt to go into the public sector, I go in knowing I have no right to allow my beliefs to interfere with another's right to live his/her life as s/he wishes.

We all want essentially the same thing: we want to be able to live our lives according to our own beliefs and in a manner which we believe will make us happy. What we want for ourselves, we should be willing to extend to others. This, in essence, is what the Golden Rule is stating. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If we all followed the Golden Rule, there would be no need for laws of any kind. No need for governments of any kind. It would be heaven on earth.