Should the Government Legislate Morality.
There are many things to consider when asking the question, "Should the government legislate morality, or not?". People seem to have a difficult time agreeing on moral issues. What is morally correct in the minds of some may not be correct in the mind of another. Is it up to our government to distinguish a definite line between the morally acceptable and the unacceptable? David Pendleton believes so. In his article, he states that the government already imposes moral beliefs on its people. He believes that the laws enforced are guides to lead people on a more moral path of life. On the other hand, Charley Reese writes about why the government should not legislate morality. He states it is not the job of the government to direct its people on how to live their life. Reese blames our immoral country on its people, and thinks it is their responsibility to do something about it. .
One of Pendleton's main points is that of public and private morality. He tries to blur the line of privacy by stating that everything a person does affects everyone else, be it directly or indirectly. Then he follows up with "others have good reason to be interested in how I live my life" (193). I could not disagree with his statement more. This is a weak attempt to prove his point about the difference in public and private affairs. Another argument Pendleton makes is that "it's hard to have a society when the things people have in common are too few" (192). I find this weak because I believe in a diverse community. He is saying that people who do not have similar beliefs can not live together in society. The only weakness I found in Reese's article was his aggressive nature. When I read parts of his article, I felt some of my beliefs being attacked. That is no way to persuade opposing readers to change their minds. .
The main difference between these two authors" perspectives is of coarse the idea that morality should be enforced through the government.