What's Going On: Morality and legislation: A distant memory?

Since this nation was first conceived, the framework of it in terms of the constitution, the Bill of Rights and centuries-worth of legislation can trace its collective lineage to either moral or pragmatic reasons.

Most of our laws, especially today, are passed for pragmatic reasons. It’s not safe to drive recklessly, tax loopholes need closing, environmental regulations enacted.

Laws passed based on morality though are becoming less and less frequent.

Society’s interpretation of morality has been used to justify slavery, segregation, denial of voting and property rights for women and prohibition. It was used when drafting domestic policy such as Manifest Destiny and foreign policy as well, such as military support against dictators denying basic human rights to its citizens.

More recently, morality has been used to defend abortion, bans against homosexual marriage and even the war on drugs.

However, debates and legislation rooted from moral convictions are becoming more and more obsolete.

While some may call it the evolution of our society, or evidence of ongoing moral decay, laws and policies advocated for based on right and wrong have become more and more rare.

Arguments against homosexual marriage rage on today with opponents still advocating against it largely based on moral reasons. The same remains true with regards to the war on drugs, especially with the recent trend to legalize marijuana use for medicinal and even recreational purposes.

However, as those issues seemed headed toward an eventual resolution, I can’t help but wonder if this type of argument won’t be completely obsolete in the coming years.

What will our moral debates of tomorrow entail, or will they even exist?

It would premature to assume these arguments will be extinct anytime soon. Abortion, while federally sanctioned 40 years ago, will be debated in different forms for many more years. Whether it’s using federal funding for Planned Parenthood or requiring health insurance providers to cover certain procedures, moral opposition to abortion remains a central issue.

That argument can also extend to contraceptives and their availability.

Beyond those related topics, morality will continue to play a role in the debate surrounding stem cell research. Upon closer inspection, this argument is also closely connected to abortion as it relates to the rights of the unborn, in this instance, embryos created in a lab for the purpose of medical research.

The morality card has also been used in discussing animal welfare, immigration and even health care reform. In some regards, it has even surfaced in the sports world in relation to performance-enhancing drugs and the question of if college athletes should be paid.

For most people, their moral compass is largely determined by their religious convictions, or lack thereof.

And while the differentiation between church and state is more pronounced today than ever before in our nation’s history, to believe we as society will no longer act based on our perception of simply what is right versus what is wrong is most likely premature.

Maybe the better question though to ask ourselves is without the religious convictions providing direction for our morality, where will the sense of right and wrong emanate?

Only time will tell.

Gregory Orear is the General Manager/Editor of the Red Oak Express and Glenwood Opinion-Tribune. He can be contacted at publisher@redoakexpress.com.