Morality and Legislation I

Mid-term elections are coming soon, and I have been experiencing inner conflict. I hold some very strong convictions that happen to be aligned with the reds. Other convictions of mine, such as the importance of funding for programs benefiting the underpriviledged, fair and proportional taxation, education, handgun control, and environmental responsibility, happen to be aligned with the blue. And I have not a little angst that issues like the protection of the most innocent and the natural family structure are yoked to an agenda including big-business, war, and capitol punishment.

I am painfully aware of the plight of those faced with pregnancy during middle school and those in love with someone of the same gender--compassion, I believe, should be considered part of being an educated voter. Moral conservatives are not cold-hearted dogma drones. This compassion must be the impetus for the moral conservative to clarify and test his beliefs. With some issues, such as abortion, this courageous facing of the suffering of those involved brings about a quick affirmation: the unborn child is human as well.

However, with other issues, such as gay marriage, compassion leads to a hard examination of what right we have to legislate something that causes the suffering of others. It seems that there are two types of reasoning for the conservative position. (I reject outright the "God says so" argument, which portrays God's will as arbitrary and thus tyrannical: if a good God created a rational universe, then his will is both for our good and rationally feasible). The first is based on foreseen effects: gay marriage would weaken the family structure, the backbone of society. Although this makes a serious argument, I am often not satisfied with it.

The second type of reasoning is based on morality, or nature. But what right do we have to tell other people what is best for them? On some level all people must admit some connection between morality and law. This is seen at least in the statement that it is wrong to dictate what others can and can't do. On the other hand, few believe that all morality should be legislated. Persecution of all non-contractual lying, for instance, would be untenable.

This is the question I want to work through: what is the connection between morality and legislation? This has already become much longer than I intended. And now that I am an engineering student, I do not have the leisure I had during my liberal arts days. Another installment should follow soon.

(The impetus for this is "The Clash of Orthodoxies: Law, Religion, and Morality in Crisis," by Robert P. George, professor of jurisprudence at Princeton. Not what I thought it would be. Or perhaps I just need to re-work through issues myself.)

This is Miguel. He and his family are political refugees fleeing the violence in Columbia. The were living in Peru while I was on a mission trip to an orphanage in Lurin a few summers ago. I do not know where they are now. Last I heard, his father was arrested as an illegal immigrant in Peru. Sad.

As a sign of solidarity and friendship, Miguel's photo will now be my profile image.

First Posting

I can't believe I've created a blog. As if cyberspace weren't already cluttered with enough random self-expression that will never be read, I am adding to it. The blame, however, belongs entirely to Funky Pigeon.

The name of this blog, the Perpetual Student, derives from an (affectionate??) jab periodically said of me by friends and family. Suitably, perhaps, since I am returning to school and entering my seventh year of college (and no-I'm not becoming a doctor).

You will notice that I have not posted a picture. You see, the site name I wanted (perpetualstudent.blogspot.com) was taken. And I do not want to invalidate any claims made by my abbreviated site name (perpetualstud.blogspot.com).