moral uplift, legally and culturally achieved?

[kaysixteen]

I apologize again for not having continued to engage on the Dr Seuss thread, and for not yet having engaged on the libraries and culture thread.  I will get back to them, but if I do so too intensively, and especially too quickly, I get hot and bothered, generating more heat than light.

But now I want to ask a question for all and sundry: what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public moraity?  On what basis, and how should this be determined?

[nebo113]

Address your query to the Taliban and the Iranian morality police.

[marshwiggle]

Address your query to the Taliban and the Iranian morality police.

Isn't "Drag Queen Story Time" an attempt to enforce (or at least encourage) the moral uplift of acceptance and inclusion?

[apl68]

Are you referring specifically to sexual morality? 

To a broader enforcement of ethical standards?  Governments in general have laws against things like theft and murder, at a minimum.  They usually also outlaw things like fraud.  Some say they should police things that are deemed to be discrimination stemming from bias, and "hate speech," however these may be defined.

Are you referring to governmental efforts to nudge people in a socially desirable direction--things like tax incentives to give to charity or buy electric vehicles, rules about recycling, etc. that many would like to see?

We could get into all sorts of things on a thread like this.

[Anselm]

I would say that historically the best method is peer pressure.  Boycotts, scorn, ostracism and opprobrium can do wonders to keep people in line.

[dismalist]

what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public morality?

None at all, for God's sake! Morality is not legislated.

Morality develops spontaneously, if we let it, and efficient morality is voluntarily adopted and spreads. Various religions adopted or propagated various moralities. Today, we see those that have survived so far.

In recent times technological improvements in health and reproductive control have made parts of traditional morality seem beside the point. That may be painful for some to watch, but it is almost certainly beneficial.

Any attempts at centralized control of morality will surely lead into dead ends.

[Parasaurolophus]

Are you referring specifically to sexual morality? 

To a broader enforcement of ethical standards?  Governments in general have laws against things like theft and murder, at a minimum.  They usually also outlaw things like fraud.  Some say they should police things that are deemed to be discrimination stemming from bias, and "hate speech," however these may be defined.

Are you referring to governmental efforts to nudge people in a socially desirable direction--things like tax incentives to give to charity or buy electric vehicles, rules about recycling, etc. that many would like to see?

We could get into all sorts of things on a thread like this.

I think this hits the nail on the head.

We could easily discuss the merits and demerits of natural law theories vs. legal positivism, but that may not be what kaysixteen has in mind.

[jerseyjay]

But now I want to ask a question for all and sundry: what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public moraity?  On what basis, and how should this be determined?

I agree with apl68. This seems so vague that it could mean anything. The last time I checked, at my local library, patrons must wear clothes, could not openly fornicate or use drugs, had to speak in a relatively low voice, cannot destroy library property,must close the bathroom door and flush the toilets, and should not reshelve items themselves. All of these reflect socially acceptable norms of behavior--i.e., morality. Most librarian patrons (and librarians, I assume) would not be happy if these norms were removed (although of course norms change over time). My library actually has a security guard who will point out if patrons are violating these norms.

On the other hands, patrons are generally free to read what they want, write what they want using the computers, and think what they want when they stare into space. Most library patrons (and librarians) would probably be upset if libraries were to enforce a particular view of literature, politics, etc. Of course, the idea that libraries should be places of intellectual freedom is itself a moral idea.

So what do you really want to ask? Whether schools and libraries should enforce certain a political morality? Whether they should advocate a particular view of sexual morality? Or whether schools should teach people that murder is wrong? That libraries should oppose racism?

[Ruralguy]

Eventually libraries will go completely electronic (at least as far as books go). At that point, nobody will have to look at the "immoral" books if they don't want to, and you can add all sorts of online identification for people to be able access stuff. Win-win unless you think we'll all be wiped off the face of the Earth because a few of us might be reading a book about a gay couple. I am willing to risk it.

[Wahoo Redux]

Whatever you think the government's rightful purpose in controlling us is, kay, will not be what the rest of us think.  You will get mad. 

George Orwell, Albert Camus, and Arthur Koestler maybe have your answers. 

You are maybe experiencing some sort of psychological problem?

Quote from Ratguy:

nobody will have to look at the "immoral" books if they don't want to

No one has to look at them now.  For some, however, just their very existence is unendurable.  How dare people experience sexuality!!!!

[kaysixteen]

I might well get mad, as I confess I have done here when my religious views, and advocacy for them, makes me accused of mental illness.   Or when academics, who should have reasonable standards of evidentiary analysis and critical thinking, cite links to bizarro propaganda that denies the manifestly obvious teaching of the scriptures regarding sexual morality, but that is actually not what I was trying to get at admittedly very late last night, when I wrote up this question rather too quickly.  So let me elaborate and rephrase:

I am not advocating anything like mandatory attendance at religious worship, but I am advocating for taking reasonable steps, both in law, and as Anselm wisely put it, through moral suasion, to foster real moral uplift and basic standards of ethics and behavior in our increasingly disordered, chaotic, and culturally disintegrating culture.  Obviously sexual mores are part of this, but there are many more aspects to this as well.  Take drugs.   Drugs suck.   Really, they do, and anyone who actually has to live and work in a decrepit community full of junkies and whose growth industry seems to be legalized weed shops, could much more easily set aside liberal stuck in the 60s attitudes towards their use, and see the real destruction they cause, *especially towards children.   A friend of mine and  her husband are trying to foster to adopt a 9yo boy, whose junkie parents lost custody when he was less than 6 months old, but are being stymied by silly family reunification policies that fly in the face of the reality that the bio parents are still using, and should have no more contact, let alone rights, to the child.   Beyond this, other issues come to mind, such as easy no-fault divorce, normalization of illegitimacy, acceptance of what apl rightly calls predatory capitalism, well... I could go on and on.  So what concrete steps could be taken to address these issues?

[Hegemony]

If there were simple concrete steps that could be taken, we would be taking them. But the fact is that such things are far from simple, as modern life — and life across the ages — has proven. And for those who think they have a clear idea on what a moral life would look like, actually living that life is not easy, as millennia of experience has also proven.

There's also the fact that to take society-wide steps to encourage certain kinds of behavior, the society has to have a consensus about what the desirable behavior looks like. And a consensus on the steps that should be taken to get there. We are very far from having agreement on either of those essential things.

Some cultures do have a greater emphasis on "behaving in ways that benefit the culture at large rather than just one's individual self." I would say that some Eastern cultures, such as Japan and Korea, and the Scandinavian cultures are particularly good at that worldview. But as far as I can tell, the ways in which government and legislation foster that worldview grow out of the culture's preceding worldview, rather than causing it.

American culture is so individualistic, to an extreme, that I don't think we have much chance of fostering much of anything other than "I'll do things my own way and to hell with you."

[Kron3007]

I might well get mad, as I confess I have done here when my religious views, and advocacy for them, makes me accused of mental illness.   Or when academics, who should have reasonable standards of evidentiary analysis and critical thinking, cite links to bizarro propaganda that denies the manifestly obvious teaching of the scriptures regarding sexual morality, but that is actually not what I was trying to get at admittedly very late last night, when I wrote up this question rather too quickly.  So let me elaborate and rephrase:

I am not advocating anything like mandatory attendance at religious worship, but I am advocating for taking reasonable steps, both in law, and as Anselm wisely put it, through moral suasion, to foster real moral uplift and basic standards of ethics and behavior in our increasingly disordered, chaotic, and culturally disintegrating culture.  Obviously sexual mores are part of this, but there are many more aspects to this as well.  Take drugs.   Drugs suck.   Really, they do, and anyone who actually has to live and work in a decrepit community full of junkies and whose growth industry seems to be legalized weed shops, could much more easily set aside liberal stuck in the 60s attitudes towards their use, and see the real destruction they cause, *especially towards children.   A friend of mine and  her husband are trying to foster to adopt a 9yo boy, whose junkie parents lost custody when he was less than 6 months old, but are being stymied by silly family reunification policies that fly in the face of the reality that the bio parents are still using, and should have no more contact, let alone rights, to the child.   Beyond this, other issues come to mind, such as easy no-fault divorce, normalization of illegitimacy, acceptance of what apl rightly calls predatory capitalism, well... I could go on and on.  So what concrete steps could be taken to address these issues?

The issue is there is no agreement on most of this.  I don't think society has gone down hill as you do.  In some waysz perhaps, but in others it has improved.  I feel racism is better (still bad) than in the past, gender equality has come a long way, etc.  It has drifted from your personal ideals, but in many ways I disagree that society is crumbling.

Likewise, I don't feel drugs are the scourge you do.  The real harm is how we criminalize it, leading to most of the issues.  When the population disagrees so fundamentally on what "proper" morals are, how could it ever be imposed? 

Of course, what you really want is for everyone to accept and follow your personal moral code based on your specific interpretation of your religion.  Not going to happen.

[marshwiggle]

But now I want to ask a question for all and sundry: what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public moraity?  On what basis, and how should this be determined?

I agree with apl68. This seems so vague that it could mean anything. The last time I checked, at my local library, patrons must wear clothes, could not openly fornicate or use drugs, had to speak in a relatively low voice, cannot destroy library property,must close the bathroom door and flush the toilets, and should not reshelve items themselves. All of these reflect socially acceptable norms of behavior--i.e., morality. Most librarian patrons (and librarians, I assume) would not be happy if these norms were removed (although of course norms change over time). My library actually has a security guard who will point out if patrons are violating these norms.

Those are excellent examples.

On the other hands, patrons are generally free to read what they want, write what they want using the computers, and think what they want when they stare into space. Most library patrons (and librarians) would probably be upset if libraries were to enforce a particular view of literature, politics, etc. Of course, the idea that libraries should be places of intellectual freedom is itself a moral idea.

So what do you really want to ask? Whether schools and libraries should enforce certain a political morality? Whether they should advocate a particular view of sexual morality? Or whether schools should teach people that murder is wrong? That libraries should oppose racism?

Well said.

In society, there are many positions where the expectations are that people in those positions need to be able to not express their own opinions or let their opinions influence their professional behaviour. This includes:

• judges
• mediators
• marriage counselors
• election officials

(It used to also include journalists and academics, but as "activism" took over, many in those fields see advancing their own opinions as their mission.)

I can treat my neighbours with respect and dignity without knowing anything about their religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation, or a zillion other things. As long as I keep my dog out of their rose bushes, and we help each other dig out after a big snowstorm, we don't have to decide how many things we agree on.

Public servants, (including librarians), should perform their duties in as apolitical a manner as possible. As illustrated above, rules in public spaces should focus on what sort of behaviour is required of everyone to make the space easy for all to use. None of these rules are to endorse some sort of ideal of how people "should" act in other spaces, just on what is required in this one.

Eventually libraries will go completely electronic (at least as far as books go). At that point, nobody will have to look at the "immoral" books if they don't want to, and you can add all sorts of online identification for people to be able access stuff. Win-win unless you think we'll all be wiped off the face of the Earth because a few of us might be reading a book about a gay couple. I am willing to risk it.

Actually, libraries being in-person with physical books is generally seen as important to provide access to lower-income people. Electronic-only resources will always be disproportionately hard to access for poorer people.

[nebo113]

Those who were forced into substandard schools because of the color of their skin might not agree with K16s notion of past moral glory.