There has been a long, drawn out argument in a series of comments to some recent posts, and it's unfortunate for me, because I'm not an especially comment-oriented person. But OTOH, I don't want people to think that my not replying to comments means anything. Silence does not indicate agreement or disagreement; often it means that I didn't read the comments.

As I have said many times, it is not my purpose to run a debating society; I write these posts to share what I think, and then as the spirit moves me, I'll move on to another post. Comments are always appreciated, and (with the exception of obvious spam comments that get through -- and I often miss those!) I never censor them or ban people. But just because I appreciate, allow, and would never censor comments, that does not mean that I have to answer them. I don't even have to read them. If I spent my time answering every point made in every comment, the emphasis of the blog would change, and the distractions would cause me to lose my flow.

But clearly, some commenters are annoyed with me for ignoring their concerns about morality, especially in the context of law, and especially in the context of consensual homosexuality. The latter is clearly viewed by some to be of paramount importance. Why it matters so much more than adultery or masturbation I do not know. Nor can I understand the argument that tolerance of consensual homosexuality leads to the abandonment of morality. Perhaps that is because I do not consider consensual homosexual conduct to be immoral (at least no more immoral than consensual heterosexual conduct).

Like most people, I think there should be laws about some things, and not others. Not all of the things I think there should be laws about involve morality, although some do.

In terms of jurisprudence, that distinction is to be found in malum in se versus malum prohibitum. Some things are inherently bad, and are nearly always considered so by nearly all people in nearly all places and cultures; others vary. The devil lies in the details. It is inherently wrong to steal, but it is not inherently wrong to sell widgets from the home or burn leaves in the yard. I am not saying that I only support malum in se law, but I do think we shouldn't be kidding ourselves into pretending that malum prohibitum laws (such as laws relating to alcohol, drugs, the environment, pornography, etc.) are the same as malum in se. (See my many posts about manufactured morality.)

This distinction came up in an earlier comment, and my reply to it:

I want an agreed upon set of principles to be taught regarding what is acceptable (respect for others) and is NOT acceptable (stealing, rape, murder, assault,etc.)

I agree with you on respect for others, and stealing, rape, murder, assault. The problem lies in the "etc."

So what is morality? There certainly is no universal agreement on it, much less how far it should go in being the basis of law. As a libertarian, I pretty much believe that the criminal police power of the state (especially the power to kill or imprison citizens) should be limited to cases of force or fraud committed by one person against another.

(But even that simple rule is subject to qualifications depending on consent; if two men agree to fight each other, they have consented to the use of force. Similarly, I am sure there are some who consider homosexuality to be a consensual form of mutual harm, and therefore wrong. So is boxing wrong too?)

I think Thomas Jefferson put it quite well with his "pick my pocket or break my leg" standard.

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

This is not to say that Jefferson's views are dispositive or controlling on all moral questions. No one's are. Views of morality vary from person to person and culture to culture, and that is not moral relativism, but a simple observation. My view of morality obviously does not please everyone, and how could it? For starters, I don't believe God is a book, and I think it is a mistake to declare that religious texts should be controlling on moral issues. Many people disagree with that, and insist that religion should be controlling.

I tend more towards a common-sense view of morality, based on mutual respect for my fellow human beings, best summarized by what we call the Golden Rule:

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This reflects (but also predates) an important saying attributed to Jesus:

Love they neighbor as thyself.

But I don't think that recognizing its validity requires either a belief that Jesus Christ said it, or that Jesus Christ is the son of God (as well as God as well as the Holy Ghost). Reasonable minds can differ.

Of course, at the other extreme are people like Aleister Crowley, who declared, simply "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." A philosophy I think is inherently wrong because it does not countenance any duty to refrain from harming one's fellow human beings. And if other people are free to harm me, if they are free to use force to impose their will on me and tell me what to do, then there is really no freedom at all, but simply the law of the jungle, which is the law of raw nature. Like what I see in my fish tanks; the bigger fish kill and eat the smaller fish, which in turn kill and eat the smaller fish. That is hardly a model for the type of human society in which I would like to live -- which is one based on mutual respect and tolerance, and the Golden Rule. This means minimal government, because the bigger government gets, the more it leads to precisely the type of tyranny I see in the fish tank.

I realize that the "leave people alone" (or "leave people alone unless they harm you") approach to morality does not settle all questions of morality, nor will it please everyone.

There is, to be sure, plenty of room for disagreement and inconsistency.

Again, I'd say the Devil is in the details, except I already said it and I don't want to be accused of believing in the Devil.

Etc.

MORE: I should add that I think the argument that morality can come only from God is problematic for two admittedly practical reasons:

1. It immediately raises the questions of whose god (or which god) is authoritative as to morality, and according to whose interpretation?

and

2. It lends itself easily to the demagogic and illogical claim that atheists are inherently immoral.