Is The Us Better With Strict Moral Conformance Or High Individual Freedom?

[Bikeemikey]

**** Please please please do not make this a thread on homosexuality or gay marriage. I am specifically interested in whether we as LDS value moral conformance over freedom, or vice-versa (or is it impossible to separate them). ****

I have been thinking a lot about the potential tension between moral choice/action and individual freedom. We are part of a religious tradition that places a premium on both, however, we are increasingly living in communities where there is a perceived tension between these objectives.

Here are few ideas I have been experimenting with in trying to understand this morality vs. freedom question:

LDS believe in salvation - that is the point of our lives on earth.

Our salvation is related to our moral actions.

Homosexuality (as an immoral action) would get in the way of salvation (at least many LDS would make this claim).

The govt is a monolithic entity that will/can impact people's private (moral) decisions.

As such, it is an entity will/can impact people's salvation.

In virtue of the govts capacity to impact an individuals salvation the have an obligation to impact it positively.

Therefore legislation should enhance the principles that lead to salvation, even at the expense of some (individual) freedoms.

Another common idea is that even though enhanced tolerance of immoral principles (principles that violate the standards necessary for salvation) don't impact my capacity to teach my principles to my family and church community, such tolerance of immoral practices will reduce the chance that such teachings will be followed by my children/family etc.

As such, I have an obligation to enhance the likelihood that my family attain salvation by limiting the prevalence of immoral actions in the communities I live in. If I can use the govt to do this I ought, even if by doing so i am using the govt to limit others freedom (a theological paternalism if you will).

Such a decision is a rational cost benefit analysis where all metrics are skewed toward salvation over freedom. It is both reasonable and rational. Govt already limits some freedoms of individuals in favor of greater benefits for the community (as a whole we gain more than we lose - there have been some good quotes on this topic in many threads).

The question from a theological perspective is whether one who is compelled by govts to live a certain way would be eligible to "salvation" anyway. Is Salvation as much about the actions we would have made (had the context been different) as it is about actions we did make?

In my opinion you are not going to change most LDS people's mind engaging them at a political level... You have to address the theological underpinnings related to the govts capacity/role in salvation. Something that may actually not be wrong , though personally I think the ideas above are not valid.

Here is my question that I would like to hear from people on:

I am interested in other peoples arguments into why we care about immoral practices being acceptable within our communities, but not being required to follow such practices within our church communities. Is this based on our political or religious understandings of the world, or some hybrid there of? How do we balance the LDS understanding of the essential idea of freedom and the importance of morality as a key to salvation?

[bu11fr0g]

No. It is better with both, the tricky part is how to encourage it.

[Carborendum]

There is no reason why these traits are mutually exclusive. Only fallible man is insistent on separating them. In fact, you can't have one without the other. The problem lies in philosophy not application.

1) If I make a choice to have an affair, the natural man thinks that is exercising greater freedom. The fact is that it diminishes my freedom. Example: Can I hope to run for public office without the fear of having that come back to haunt me? If, however, I choose of my own free will to consciously NOT have an affair, I later have greater freedom to do more things without the fear of my past coming to haunt me.

2) If I choose to start taking drugs, the natural man says I can do what I want with my body. That's freedom! The fact is that if I continue down that path, addiction will follow. Then where is my freedom? If I consciously choose to avoid addictive drugs, then I still have the choice of taking drugs later. I just choose not to.

Now, if we apply the same type of philosophy to society as a whole here is what we get.

1) If we as a society begin to accept sinful practices as, not only common, but accepted practices, we will lose the societal thread that binds. This statement begs the injection of SSA, SSM, etc. But it is equally true of all sinful practices. Take a look at videos of teens acting out on Youtube. They have nothing to do with sex. They have simply lost any ideals of right and wrong because no one taught them. Are these children going to be good citizens as they grow up? Are they going to have more freedom or less freedom? (*Further discussion regarding leadership below.)

2) The complete dissolution of government would seem like a greater deal of freedom. But how could a prosperous society exist among fallible mortals without a government to punish guilt? Could we as individuals or small communities put up defenses against marauders or a militant band a-la "The Postman"? We'd all be stuck with a subsistence lifestyle. Where's the freedom there?

Leadership:

To have a prosperous, stable society, the concept of leadership is of utmost importance. Why? Because someone has to make the $#!++~ calls from time to time otherwise nothing gets done. But to have a free society, we need such a leader to understand morality. Morality is the basis of freedom and leadership.

The ideal would be to only have God as our leader. Unfortunately, that has only happened in rare instances in history. In between those times, we need mortal men to lead. To maintain freedom, both the populous and the leader must be men of integrity. Here's why.

A true leader of free people doesn't just lead by the power of the sword. He leads through explaining why it is the right thing to do and getting the people themselves to WANT to do it. Atheists wonder why God lets evil people prosper. It is because he doesn't just lead by the sword. He leads by principle.

Sun Tzu called it "moral authority". By having similar (never can have exactly the same) moralities, we see that the leader can use the principles that his stewardship already agrees with. He just needs to bring it up to them.

If we don't have similar moral codes (not necessarily enforced by the sword) in a society, then we have no leader, no followers, no feeling of unity, and no society.

This is what causes the fall of nations.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Carborendum

[Calm]

In my view sin and immorality leads to less freedom so if you want to maximise freedom, maximise morality.

[Vance]

"Strict Moral Conformance Or High Individual Freedom"

False dichotomy.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Vance

[Bikeemikey]

In my view sin and immorality leads to less freedom so if you want to maximise freedom, maximise morality.

Is it the case that forced morality still leads to freedom, that is the question that I am thinking about. Is it even the case that moral actions are moral actions in the absence of freedom? If not, such "moral actions" would not contribute to the overall objective of enhancing freedom.

[Bikeemikey]

"Strict Moral Conformance Or High Individual Freedom"

False dichotomy.

Thats wonderful, problem solved... any chance you could elaborate a little more... cheers.

[thesometimesaint]

Without the freedom of action there is no morality.

[Carborendum]

Is it the case that forced morality still leads to freedom?

Of course not. Morality is based on individual desire and choice. When artificial force is what causes you to make a choice, that isn't really a choice. Thus it isn't true morality.

Force may be used to punish guilt (which may be needed in some cases) but it does not change a person's heart.

For an additional perspective, consider Viktor Frankl's (sp?) book Man's Search for Meaning. He discusses the nature of freedom and choice which is fascinating.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Carborendum

[Bikeemikey]

Of course not. Morality is based on individual desire and choice. When artificial force is what causes you to make a choice, that isn't really a choice. Thus it isn't true morality.

Force may be used to punish guilt (which may be needed in some cases) but it does not change a person's heart.

For an additional perspective, consider Viktor Frankl's (sp?) book Man's Search for Meaning. He discusses the nature of freedom and choice which is fascinating.

I really like Man's Search for Meaning.

So given that the govt (generally) must use some form of force to solicit adherence to it's directives, is a highly moral (acting) society that acts this way based on aggressive govt legislation regarding moral behavior A) truly a moral society and B) a free society?

Ought we attempt to use govt/legislation to advance the cause of moral action? Obviously the answer to this is Yes.

Ought we attempt to use govt/legislation to advance the cause of all moral action?

[CV75]

I am interested in other peoples arguments into why we care about immoral practices being acceptable within our communities, but not being required to follow such practices within our church communities. Is this based on our political or religious understandings of the world, or some hybrid there of? How do we balance the LDS understanding of the essential idea of freedom and the importance of morality as a key to salvation?

The US government, according to its constitution, isn’t supposed to be a monolithic entity but is to possess limited powers. When run correctly by “We the people”, it can certainly be a tool for good.

Whatever its current state or conformity with its constitution, the morally-based laws of the land (laws against killing, stealing, lying, etc.) compel no one to obey them, only punish them when they do not.

We care about passing laws against immoral practices, and not passing laws for immoral practices because that is how we perpetuate out unity as a nation, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

As LDS, "We the people" who seek the blessings of liberty of course recognize God's hand in our lives and government. As with any other tool, we use government properly, or within the scope of its capacities, to carry out our temporal stewardship as saints.

Edited October 7, 2012 by CV75

[Bikeemikey]

The US government, according to its constitution, isn’t supposed to be a monolithic entity but is to possess limited powers. When run correctly by “We the people”, it can certainly be a tool for good.

Whatever its current state or conformity with its constitution, the morally-based laws of the land (laws against killing, stealing, lying, etc.) compel no one to obey them, only punish them when they do not.

We care about passing laws against immoral practices, and not passing laws for immoral practices because that is how we perpetuate out unity as a nation, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

As LDS, "We the people" who seek the blessings of liberty of course recognize God's hand in our lives and government. As with any other tool, we use government properly, or within the scope of its capacities, to carry out our temporal stewardship as saints.

All govt. is monolithic to some degree... perhaps the argument is that US govt is less than most. If the term monolithic is the issue I am happy to drop it. I don't think it is possible to to state that Govt (US or otherwise) will not impact our actions/decision making. As an entity that will impact our actions it also has some impact on our salvation, in as much as our salvation is dependent on our actions.

As I have been reading peoples comments I have realized I have not articulated my question very well...

Govts. will always pass legislation that has moral roots... i agree with this.

My question is whether Govt should pass legislation that covers the broader array of moral behavior necessary for salvation, or just moral behavior that violates the principle of harm? There is many forms of moral decision making that would violate the requirements of salvation but not violate principles of harm.

As for the idea the govt. does not compel only punish... there is a large amount of discussion as to whether or not there is any difference. I dont think I need to tackle that question here. I am happy to stop using the word compel. With or with out that word it is clear Govt legislation will impact our actions.

[DavidB]

Neither.

The inevitability to unregulated individual action borders on anarchy, though groups would form whose particular standards would.be at odds with other groups.

Strict religious moral conformance would just be a repeat of Europe, a complete and utter flop.

[wenglund]

In a way, conformity to morals increases personal freedoms.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Carborendum]

Also, read D&C 134. It outlines pretty clearly what civil government should and should not do with respect to conscience. After reading that, I don't know why there is much of a debate.

[DavidB]

Neither.

The inevitability to unregulated individual action borders on anarchy, though groups would form whose particular standards would.be at odds with other groups.

Strict religious moral conformance would just be a repeat of Europe, a complete and utter flop.

[MormonMason]

I don't know...ask a Spartan. Oh wait, you can't. Their society collapsed and ceased to exist. Societies that do not have morality tend to crash and burn.

The Spartans, for example, mandated homosexuality by law. But, they also required marriage to a female for every male at the age of 28 (IIRC). Many of the men had such a hard time with that that in order to get the men interested in their new wives they had to shave them down and have them wear armor and men's clothing. The Spartans also practiced mandatory infanticide for any children with the slightest imperfections. They were taught from an early age to fend for themselves and to engage in theft for survival.

Every society and Empire that does not have a basic set of morals and morality, and that does things that are not conducive to morality and decency, has ceased to exist. That should be America's wake-up call to vigilance. Instead, it would seem that we are about to go the way all other empires and societies went who adopted immorality as law.

Edited October 7, 2012 by MormonMason

[DavidB]

Every society and Empire that does not have a basic set of morals and morality, and that does things that are not conducive to morality and decency, has ceased to exist. That should be America's wake-up call to vigilance. Instead, it would seem that we are about to go the way all other empires and societies went who adopted immorality as law.

Can you show causation?

[CV75]

My question is whether Govt should pass legislation that covers the broader array of moral behavior necessary for salvation, or just moral behavior that violates the principle of harm? There is many forms of moral decision making that would violate the requirements of salvation but not violate principles of harm.

While He instituted earthly governments for the benefit of man ("for the good and safety of society"), I don't think He gave them power to save souls by legislation, but reserved this power to His Son by covenant. I believe those behaviors that are a matter of covenant alone should not be passed in legislation. Everyhting else is fair game.

[volgadon]

I never thought I'd use the Futurist poet Vladimir Mayakovsky in a somewhat gospel setting, but here goes.

Vladimir Mayakovsky (1893-1930) was highly individualist. Despising convention and conformity, Mayakovsky was brash, crass, crude, wild, savage, and iconoclastic. He publically flaunted conventional morality and proper conduct, even his poetry is a conscious attempt at smashing and breaking down the old to bring in something new. For instance, his poem "A Cloud in Trousers," is an attack on tenderness and old values. The title is a contemptuous description of men who exhibit tenderness, they aren't men but soft clouds wearing trousers. Mayakovsky's ferocious individualism ended up alienating him from both the Soviet establishment and the general public and he remained out of favour for decades after his death (or murder). I think he could have maked John Lennon look like a Sunday School president in comparison. What I find particularly interesting about Mayakovsky is that he deeply and sincerely believed in creating a new collective society built around shared goals and values, even imprisoned several times as a teenager for revolutionary activity. Mayakovsky's 1923 poem, "Pro Eto" (About This), is ostensibly a love letter after a two month long separation from Lily Brik, but it is actually a description of a poet's martyrdom, a rebellion against mundane existence, and the formation of a new society in which there is no longer love as a private emotion and passion, but love as defining character and impulse of a society transcending its individual members. "Comrade" is the concept upon which the new world hinges.

Don't get me wrong, Mayakovsky was pretty horrific most of the time, not someone I would hold up as a role model, but I think there is something to the idea that even people whgo dearly cherish their individual freedoms want a society united by shared values and goals. What, after all, is Zion, if not a society of the free, working together for the same purpose?

[Rob Osborn]

Government has an obligation and duty to pass laws that protect the rights of morality and punish abusers who break the moral code decided by society. Its thus quite obvious we have laws regulating such moral behavior concerning various things such as language, nudity,pornography, incest, rape, sodomy, etc.

This has nothing really to do with "freedom" but rather duty to moral standards.

[bdouglas]

I never thought I'd use the Futurist poet Vladimir Mayakovsky in a somewhat gospel setting, but here goes.

Vladimir Mayakovsky (1893-1930) was highly individualist. Despising convention and conformity, Mayakovsky was brash, crass, crude, wild, savage, and iconoclastic. He publically flaunted conventional morality and proper conduct, even his poetry is a conscious attempt at smashing and breaking down the old to bring in something new. For instance, his poem "A Cloud in Trousers," is an attack on tenderness and old values. The title is a contemptuous description of men who exhibit tenderness, they aren't men but soft clouds wearing trousers. Mayakovsky's ferocious individualism ended up alienating him from both the Soviet establishment and the general public and he remained out of favour for decades after his death (or murder). I think he could have maked John Lennon look like a Sunday School president in comparison. What I find particularly interesting about Mayakovsky is that he deeply and sincerely believed in creating a new collective society built around shared goals and values, even imprisoned several times as a teenager for revolutionary activity. Mayakovsky's 1923 poem, "Pro Eto" (About This), is ostensibly a love letter after a two month long separation from Lily Brik, but it is actually a description of a poet's martyrdom, a rebellion against mundane existence, and the formation of a new society in which there is no longer love as a private emotion and passion, but love as defining character and impulse of a society transcending its individual members. "Comrade" is the concept upon which the new world hinges.

Don't get me wrong, Mayakovsky was pretty horrific most of the time, not someone I would hold up as a role model, but I think there is something to the idea that even people whgo dearly cherish their individual freedoms want a society united by shared values and goals. What, after all, is Zion, if not a society of the free, working together for the same purpose?

I'm a big fan of Russian literature but usually only the biggies, i.e., Dostoevsky, Chekhov, Tolstoy and Turgenev. I've never heard of this guy but he sounds very interesting. I think if I'd been Russian and alive around the time of the revolution I would have been a revolutionary--and then later I'm sure I would have been taken out and shot, "purged" by Lenin.

[Bikeemikey]

Government has an obligation and duty to pass laws that protect the rights of morality and punish abusers who break the moral code decided by society. Its thus quite obvious we have laws regulating such moral behavior concerning various things such as language, nudity,pornography, incest, rape, sodomy, etc.

This has nothing really to do with "freedom" but rather duty to moral standards.

My question has nothing to do with whether Govts, laws and legislation should have a moral component. For me that is a given.

I am trying to make a distinction between moral considerations that are based on the question of ones salvation as distinct from harm (both being moral principles).

It is not true that all moral violations we consider problematic for salvation produce "harm" in a temporal context. My question is specifically about what are govts. obligations regarding legislation/law on moral issues that effect my salvation but do not violate the principle of "harm". The examples above are a mixture of both (language, nudity, pornography, incest, rape, sodomy).

The idea that our moral code is the one decided by the rest of society is important (though we are increasingly living in communities/countries where there is no consensus regarding this moral code). We also however have checks in balances in the constitution/law such that the govt. will not act based on our moral code when some rights and freedoms are being violated, civil rights and slavery for example. The govts. role is to oppose our moral code when certain principles are being broken.

In fact the USA went to war to convince people (at least in part) that their "commonly held moral code" that allowed slavery was producing harm and the reduction in personal liberty.

The govt. (in some instances) therefore is an acceptable arbitrator of moral code and is permitted to limit/restrict the moral codes of society when they are out of line with principles of Freedom/Harm.

If govt is moving away from legislating our private moral decisions and morality as related to religious salvation, in favor of a more narrow view of govt. legislation relating to the principle of "Harm", is this a bad move? This is the same shift that has allowed for emancipation, civil rights, more equality between genders etc. This has produced some drastic negative social outcomes. But, if we are migrating toward greater individual freedom, is this a bad thing?

Are we potentially fighting against a change in society towards greater individual freedom (at the cost of legislation that targets moral issues relating to religious salvation but not "harm)? If this is the case, are we on the right side of this fight?

[changed]

I choose freedom... I think we all made the choice of freedom in the premortal war too... isn't that what the premortal war was all about? Satan wanted to force everyone to be good, and God gave us agency to act of our own accord - which includes the ability to choose evil, as well as good.

To me it's the difference between rape and love... one is freely given, the other is not.

[DavidB]

My question has nothing to do with whether Govts, laws and legislation should have a moral component. ...

Morals based on what? Does a society need religion to have morals? As you suggest, morals based on religion are largely based on salvation.

If govt is moving away from legislating our private moral decisions and morality as related to religious salvation, in favor of a more narrow view of govt. legislation relating to the principle of "Harm", is this a bad move? This is the same shift that has allowed for emancipation, civil rights, more equality between genders etc. This has produced some drastic negative social outcomes. But, if we are migrating toward greater individual freedom, is this a bad thing?

Are we potentially fighting against a change in society towards greater individual freedom (at the cost of legislation that targets moral issues relating to religious salvation but not "harm)? If this is the case, are we on the right side of this fight?

While some religions wish to restrict private consensual activities among adults, this is a bad thing. The way "religions" want to and have ruled is in line with Satan's plan. Totalitarian theocratic rule has no place amongst peoples who wish to follow the Gospel of Jesus Christ.