Ought We to Legislate Morality or Evil?

I once saw a picket sign that said, "You cannot legislate morality". Which brought up the basic question of whether good behavior can be legislated? Put that way, it may seem like a dumb question because good human actions are fundamental to living in a community. Order breaks down quickly as soon as murder and pillaging starts. The order breaks down both passively and unperceived when sexual morality is neglected.

"Morality cannot be legislated, but behavior can be regulated. Judicial decrees may not change the heart, but they can restrain the heartless." Martin Luther King Jr. Here Dr. King makes a distinction between morality and behavior. Behavior can be moral, but a moral is the quality of a behavior in relation to the standard of it being good for the the individual and the community. The word itself denotes objectivity —a standard by which we act. Consequently, when we refer to morality, what we generally mean is "good behavior." Likewise when we refer to behavior this term is not neutral, but may be judged good or bad.

The first point made in this quotation is the fact and common sense acknowledgment that morality, i.e. right thinking —then doing, is not something that can be forced upon anyone. Although, we may say someone ought to think rightly concerning behavior provided its goodness or truth have been established by reason and consensus. Moreover, right doing proceeds from right thinking and right thinking from the love of truth. 

The oxford dictionary defines law as, "The system of rules that a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and may enforce by the imposition of penalties." I have read a few of the definitions of law while researching this topic and they all have common terms: An authority who defines it, the action or behavior itself and its composition, and the formal declaration. Other definitions include additional points, but the prior are collective terms.

Thomas Aquinas' definition is my favorite, because it is more descriptive and includes Aristotle's four causes, which are a great aid to understanding by its manifold description. His definition is thus, "a certain ordinance of reason for the common good made by him who has charge of the community, and promulgated." Lets break this down (I'll be honest, I had trouble categorizing the material and formal causes, but this is what I came up with.).

Material Cause -an ordinance of reason

Formal Cause -Promulgated

Efficient Cause -by him who has charge of the community (the authority)

Final Cause -for the common good (the desirable end)

The material and final causes of Law I think are the most beneficial points by which we understand what Law really is. Often law is disassociated from the aforementioned causes and is valued on how pleasing or accepted the outcome will be. That question should be further down the list of criteria. In human law, one of the first question asked should be, "is it good for man's nature?" Then is it good for the community?

Many people see laws that encroach on personal morality -namely sexual behavior, as religious laws and impositions of opinion, with no basis in what is good or what is true. They cannot make the connection that certain actions are bad for you and the community, e.g. sodomy. There is a mental block in place preventing them from understanding that if you perform this action, it is highly likely to harm you and others proximal, aside from the apparent immorality of it.

The fact of the matter is that the statement "you cant legislate morality", is a contradictory statement, because a law is an imposition —a forcing of good behavior —a publicly promulgated rule for you and everyone to do that which is moral. The original argument is nonsense; a good example of this, is the new "law" that permits homosexuals to get "married". Since the act of sodomy and the scandalous public display of same-sex couples is amoral, it follows that what was recently legislated is an unjust law —an act of violence according Aquinas. 

People chiefly quarrel  over the laws concerning bedroom behavior. I think the reason for this, is the common objection that the effects of a disordered sexuality do not seem to translate to anyone other than the affected parties. This is a misconception that is commonly made. It is not hard to follow the aftermath of a disordered sexual relationship upon the couple and others involved; what it does to the children and those in their social network is also apparent. Ultimately and most important, the outcomes effect children and fecundity. There are many sexual disorders with varying negative effects that are too many to get into here.

Laws concerning sexual behavior —although they overlap into religious laws, do not necessarily obtain their validity from religion. Their legitimacy is also derived from the natural order, we know this by common sense and empirical data. Sex is an exclusive right and ought to only be afforded to those in a marriage, whose aim is procreation and unity. Anytime sex is had outside of this setting and these intentions, it is disordered and detrimental to the common good. Sex' primary purpose is children. It is proven that children who are born out of wedlock or separated from mother or father, do not fare as well physically, mentally, and socially compared to those in a normal home. And those who do not choose to have children and those who limit productivity for erroneous reasons do no good for themselves or the state (excluding the impotent and other valid scenarios for which abstinence can be practiced). A state is built and funded by families; no families, no citizens; no citizens, no taxes, etc.

Sex outside of the commitment of marriage is dangerous, because as we well know, the children potentially produced from this frivolity are not guaranteed the necessary means for a healthy upbringing. With contraception so accessible —so accepted by society, the purpose of sex has changed in the public eye. Procreating a child is the last thought of a couple when they engage in intercourse; their end is orgasm. The tertiary benefit of sex has become the primary and if pleasure is the primary purpose, then what need is there for marriage. If I can get what I want without any consequences, why should I be exclusive? If this logic is proliferated, any means by which one can achieve this type of pleasure is permissible; I will let your imagination conceive what possibilities can be carried out.

I didn't intend to develop the consequences of unjust laws to this extent, but I believe it necessary to show the consequences of laws that are based on feeling rather than rationality. I'm sure there are many more examples of unjust laws, that pertain to property or people generally speaking; Sex and marriage laws, however, are more proximal considering the conspicuous immorality of our culture. 

Question: Can you legislate morality?

Answer: Yes, because a law by definition is an ordinance of reason for the common good. If you could not legislate morality, then you would be legislating an act of violence.

Is Beauty Objective

I am no expert on fine art, nor would I consider myself a connoisseur of it per se. However, like most people I feel that I am capable of recognizing beauty when I see it and appreciating it as such. Now this in not the case for all peoples and cultures and it is highly dependent upon the object in question and culture in which the person apprehends it. So, I present here two ideas: The first is that beauty has objectivity and the second is that it is subject to the tastes of the individual. I hope to clear up this contradiction cogently hence.

At some point in my reading, the idea that beauty is objective was presented to me, but I was incapable of confirming this idea in conversation to an acquaintance at work. He naturally was impressed with the aphorism, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" and being formed in our neo-modernistic society, steeped in relativism, wasn't able to cede to the idea I presented to him; granted, my arguments were muddled. Being one who is not contented with irrationality, I decided to fortify my claim by more research, this is the pithy result.

Pleasurable Beauty
Beauty is enjoyable and human beings desire to experience things that are good in this way. We are drawn to objects whether they be enjoyable food, drink, etc. Aquinas distinguishes this by saying, "beauty is that which pleases us upon being seen". Now "upon being seen" is not simply restricted to vision alone. Point in fact we can receive pleasure from music as well as poetry.

Kant applies a specific attribute upon beauty in that it evokes a disinterested pleasure. This pleasure falls out of our normal everyday concerns, it lies outside of our practical needs and participation, and we are satisfied simply by experiencing the beauty it contains.

It is important too to distinguish between something that is handsome or good-looking with that of the beautiful. The beautiful is superlative to the prior terms, yet often are interchanged with them in common speech. No, when I refer to beauty, I refer to that which pleases us to highest of degrees.

When we discus beauty as something we apprehend or know by Kant's disinterested pleasure, we are putting this knowing of beauty in a different plane as that of intellectual or even common sense knowing. All objects can be measured in relation to goodness and truth. Goodness, insofar as it aligns itself to ordered desire; truth, insofar as it aligns to knowledge. Beauty it is said, alights between both of these categories. Thus making it unique in regard to objectivity and subjectivity

This correlation between goodness and truth reveals the two aspects of beauty that most people do not realize exist. I have found that most people speak primarily of the subjectivity of beauty, as the case mentioned earlier. But since beauty is a mode of knowing an object, it falls under an objective truth. Likewise, it is something desired, wanted and loved, thus falling under goodness. Thus far, beauty has been demonstrated primarily in relation to the pleasure that is evoked from the individual; this is a relative experience of their taste.

Appreciable Beauty
We have spoken of objects in relation to ourselves, whether they be good or no. These are relative experiences based upon our level of taste. I say level of taste to distinguish a gradation of the quality of taste attained. This brings up a question: can taste be improved?

When we call something beautiful, we name it so because it contains something that other objects do not have. It contains properties that other objects lack and can be considered enjoyable by anyone who experiences them. These properties when contemplated can be admired by meditation and knowledge base.

Aristotle and Aquinas both spoke of these properties describing them as, "containing order in its arrangement of parts, having definite magnitude. It must have unity, proportion, and clarity, its excellence being perspicuous when beheld". This is true for both nature and objects made. Nature can be well formed by God and the Pieta is well made by Michelangelo. On the other hand, deformities are experienced from time to time and when specimens are found with deformities, they generally are undesirable and discarded. A sober example of this disposal are all the aborted babies with suspected down syndrome; the real beauty of their human dignity no being realized.

Who determines whether an object has the qualities that are considered admirable and is that judgement something to be placed in the category of truth? The judgement in question first must be made by someone who is experienced and trained in determining whether a specific object has excellence. From this we also must grant that an expert's taste is superior  than that of a layman's, therefore having the superior taste enables one to better perceive the intrinsic beauty of an object.

Since these judgments are expressions of superior taste, they do contain objectivity truth. Therefore, de gustibus non est disputandum (there is no arguments concerning taste) ,is irrelevant to the experts. Furthermore, the degree of admiriablity is objective and not contingent upon the feelings of the judge. 

The degrees of admirability correlates to the fact of an object occupying a place in a gradation of excellence or perfection that a judge is superior at determining than others. You may go even further and assert that the further the object is on that scale, the more pleasing it becomes to the beholder. This idea is vulnerable however, in that it does not follow that a person will enjoy an object more due to its ranking of excellence, seeing that an individuals taste is underdeveloped. 

This does not mean to say that people with nascent taste are not pleased by an object lacking admirable beauty. This is because beauty contains both objective and subjective natures; a fact which is not realized at first thought.

If someone believes something to be true and it is not true, then he is in error. An example of this is the common core movement in public schools, in which a student who cannot prove an equation, receives the good mark by his efforts shown in spite of it being false. If someone believes something to be good despite the fact that it is harmful to him and contrary to his needs,  it follows that this thing is in reality not good but evil (I know the term evil connotes morality or being in a state contrary to good, but I like to use it for many things whether they be deeds, beliefs, or man made creations because it is helpful in realizing its effects) and his ability to judge goodness is deficient. If a persons judgement is sound, then we may agree to the truth of his claims. Additionally, if someones desires are right, then we ought to agree to the goodness of those desires. 

This agreement fails in regard to beauty because when someone experiences disinterested pleasure from an inferior object, it remains enjoyable regardless of anyone else opinion or fact of its poor quality and may not be detrimental to him. On the other hand, it may be said that these people ought to learn to learn what is admirable because it is reasonable to appreciate excellence and perfection. 

The real challenge lies in determining the universal qualities of admirable beauty. It is said by learned men that admirable beauty consist of unity, clarity, and coherence; size, magnitude,  order and proportion. These terms need development, but this post is already too long.

Beauty in practice
You may be curious as to what all this means in regard to our workaday life. The chances of having a conversation concerning beauty as objective or subjective are rare, unless of course you are exposed to art more frequently than the average person. To me I think this is a good lesson concerning how we see our whole life.

The most important visual and experiential work of our lives is the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. Do you appreciate it the way it demands? Those who attend the extraordinary form can without doubt agree that it evokes pleasure regardless of whether you are master of ceremonies or a layman with no experience whatsoever. The symbols, colors, smells, and sounds of it stimulate us in deep in mystifying ways; this is fitting provided how long it has been in formation. Furthermore, if we cultivated our taste, how much more appreciable could this be for us if we could comprehend all the symbols, colors, and gestures in a deeper way. Our taste ought to be elevated concerning this as well as all the sacraments. This can apply to many aspects of life since it is not only restricted to those objects that are viewed, but to many other experiences we encounter. Make your life beautiful or rather "be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect."

Is beauty objective?

Yes and no. 

It is objective in that beauty can be admirable for its intrinsic qualities of order, clarity, unity, coherence, etc., being determined by one who is experienced and whose taste has been developed in the kind of object they are experts in. 

Beauty is also subjective due to the effect of disinterested pleasure it evokes in the person appreciating it regardless of the gradation of his taste or the quality of the object

For a much more detailed explanation of this topic, read Six Great Ideas by Mortimer J. Adler.