Reason.com - Free Minds and Free Markets
Reason logo Reason logo
  • Latest
  • Magazine
    • Current Issue
    • Archives
    • Subscribe
    • Crossword
  • Video
    • Reason TV
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • Free Media
    • The Reason Interview
  • Podcasts
    • All Shows
    • The Reason Roundtable
    • The Reason Interview With Nick Gillespie
    • Freed Up
    • The Soho Forum Debates
  • Volokh
  • Newsletters
  • Donate
    • Donate Online
    • Ways To Give To Reason Foundation
    • Torchbearer Society
    • Planned Giving
  • Subscribe
    • Reason Plus Subscription
    • Print Subscription
    • Gift Subscriptions
    • Subscriber Support

Log In

Create new account

Big Government

Don't Legislate Morality: Most Americans Can't Agree on What's Immoral

Most matters enjoy too little moral agreement to make fertile ground for government intervention.

J.D. Tuccille | 3.25.2026 7:00 AM

Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests
The U.S. Capitol and the scales of justice | Illustration: Midjourney
(Illustration: Midjourney)

The moral argument for not making laws about many—especially victimless—activities is that people have a right to live their own lives so long as they don't hurt anybody else. That's a convincing case for those of us who naturally gravitate to a live-and-let-live take on life. But it's unpersuasive to the growing ranks of those inclined to control freakery in these illiberal times, and who believe the state should step in to control bad things. The strongest rebuttal to the authoritarian case is that people so vigorously disagree as to what constitutes "bad" that efforts to regulate a whole host of activities invite noncompliance. Recent polling provides evidence that Americans disagree on many issues.

You are reading The Rattler from J.D. Tuccille and Reason. Get more of J.D.'s commentary on government overreach and threats to everyday liberty.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

First, a Little Common Ground

When it comes to what constitutes an immoral activity, Americans have some common ground. According to recent Pew Research polling, 90 percent of us believe it's immoral for married people to have an extramarital affair. Two percent say it's morally acceptable and 7 percent believe it's not a moral issue at all. That low opinion of cheating is shared by 93 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of Democrats. At least 90 percent of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews agree. Eighty-nine percent of men and 91 percent of women concur, and at least 89 percent of all age groups also morally disapprove of stepping out on a marriage. The weakest disapproval comes from atheists, "only" 84 percent of whom call extramarital affairs immoral, and 5 percent of whom say they're morally acceptable.

That's as close to universal agreement as you'll ever get on anything, though it raises some interesting questions about who opened all those Ashley Madison accounts. It's also the only issue Pew asked about that Americans generally agree is immoral.

"Across a wide range of issues, Americans express morally permissive views," notes Pew.

Americans Don't Agree That Many Things Are Immoral

After infidelity, the issue seen as the next most immoral by Americans is viewing pornography, though only 52 percent of us say it's wrong; 47 percent disagree, with 15 percent saying it's morally acceptable and 32 percent believing it's not a moral issue.

Abortion is considered immoral by 47 percent of Americans. Fifty-two percent disagree, with 21 percent calling it acceptable and 31 percent saying it's not a moral issue.

After that, we drop below 40 percent, with 39 percent of Americans calling homosexuality immoral. Thirty-five percent say it's immoral for patients to choose to end their lives with the help of a doctor. The death penalty is labeled immoral by 34 percent of us.

Then we fall below 30 percent when it comes to Americans considering activities immoral: Gambling comes in at 29 percent, while spanking children, using marijuana, and getting a divorce are all called immoral by 23 percent of Americans.

And while the rich are widely despised by progressives and populists, targeted with wealth taxes and dismissive wishes that billionaires shouldn't exist, most Americans don't think there's anything immoral about success. Asked if "being extremely rich (for example, having billions of dollars)" is immoral, only 18 percent of Americans agree. An identical share of people believe being rich is morally acceptable, while 63 percent say it's not a moral issue at all.

In fact, on numerous issues, as many or more people believe an activity is morally acceptable as believe it is immoral: the death penalty, spanking children, using marijuana, getting a divorce, being extremely rich, drinking alcohol, using in vitro fertilization, using contraceptives, and eating meat.

That's right! Sorry vegetarians and vegans, but 41 percent of us say eating meat is morally acceptable, while only 4 percent call it immoral—a 10–1 ratio. At any given gathering, more people are probably inclined to order steak tartar than to agree that meat is murder.

Disagreement on Morality Makes a Poor Basis for Law

In truth, a lot of the issues some Americans get upset about are seen approvingly or with disinterest by half or more of their countrymen. Abortion and pornography are hot-button issues fueling legislation in much of the country, but only about half of the population view them with moral disapproval. This makes them poor targets for legislation at a national level and in many states, since an opposing half or more of the population either see the law as wrong or think there's no moral problem for government to address. That can lead to enormous problems with noncompliance.

"Many laws are ineffective, in part because they conflict with prevailing social norms, making private agents unwilling to cooperate with law enforcement (for example, by whistle-blowing)," MIT economist Daron Acemoglu and Stanford economist Matthew O. Jackson pointed out in a 2016 paper. "Laws that are in strong conflict with prevailing social norms may backfire and lead to a significant decline in law-abiding behavior in society."

Feeling strongly that something is bad doesn't make it a viable target for legislation if a sizeable enough opposing faction believes the same something is good or just not a proper subject for legal intervention. Imposing restrictions over significant disagreement delegitimizes the law, lawmakers, and law enforcers.

This is especially obvious when it comes to issues which only very small minorities of people feel are wrong, such as eating meat. The same consideration applies when people are divided on an issue and restrictions must be forced on a sizable percentage of the population that's likely to refuse obedience.

Underlining the point: Not only do people disagree about the morality of many issues, but Americans are more likely than the citizens of other countries to view each other as immoral.

"The United States is the only place we surveyed where more adults (ages 18 and older) describe the morality and ethics of others living in the country as bad (53%) than as good (47%)," Pew Research reported earlier this month, of its survey of 25 countries.

As with all things these days, there's a partisan element to this. "Democrats and independents who lean toward the Democratic Party are much more likely than Republicans and Republican leaners to rate fellow Americans as morally and ethically bad (60% vs. 46%)." That said, supporters of both major parties are increasingly inclined to call their opponents immoral because it's 2026 and of course they do.

When large factions disagree about the morality of an issue and the opponents see each other as just flat-out bad, a very strong case can be made for just leaving people alone to make independent decisions. That is, unless somebody really wants an unwinnable fight.

But, while it ought not be a law, I think we can all agree that you shouldn't have an extramarital affair with a vegan.

The Rattler is a weekly newsletter from J.D. Tuccille. If you care about government overreach and tangible threats to everyday liberty, this is for you.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

NEXT: Brickbat: Triage

J.D. Tuccille is a contributing editor at Reason.

Big GovernmentPartisanshipImmoralityMoralityAbortionWealthBillionairesDeath PenaltyGambling
Share on FacebookShare on XShare on RedditShare by emailPrint friendly versionCopy page URL Add Reason to Google
Media Contact & Reprint Requests

Hide Comments (89)

Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.

  1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

    For example, most people believe that sexualizing children is immoral, but not everyone.

    1. Michael Ejercito   2 months ago

      Like teachers?

      1. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

        One good example, yes.

      2. NM Dave   2 months ago

        Or our current president and his friends

        1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

          I see the lying, retarded NPC has yet to update for the reality that Trump turned in Epstein over those type of inappropriate actions, not joined in. Don't expect truth from commie scum and NM Dave doesn't disappoint on that stereotype.

    2. MollyGodiva   2 months ago

      Like MAGAs?

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        Seems Democrats are the ones being nailed as being Epstein's pawns.

        "But Trump is mentioned thousands of times".

        How many fucking times is Trump mentioned by ANY random Democrat? The number is insanely high.

    3. Bruce D   2 months ago

      Is a 17-year-old a child? People can't agree upon what constitutes a "child". In about 30 U.S. states, the age of consent is 16. Are those 16 year-olds "children"?

      1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

        Minimum age for chopping off body parts should at least be as high as for buying tobacco, mmmkay, bruce?

        1. NM Dave   2 months ago

          So my daughter's friend Whitney, whose breasts were so large that her back was in constant, throbbing pain at 14 or 15 should have been forced by the government to lug those things around for 2 or three more years?

          1. EISTAU Gree-Vance   2 months ago

            Did Whitney transition to a dude?

            Idiot.

  2. charliehall   2 months ago

    "90 percent of us believe it's immoral for married people to have an extramarital affair."

    Our voting is not consistent with that. We elected Bill Clinton and Donald Trump.

    1. Rev Arthur L kuckland (5-30-24 banana republic day)   2 months ago

      You forgot to include Biden, he cheated on his wife with his child.

      1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

        He cheated on his first wife with Dr Jill

    2. GOD OF PENGUIN ISLAND   2 months ago

      I wonder, is there any moral component to the Dunning-Kruger effect?

      1. Liberty_Belle   2 months ago

        That you could be too immoral to know that you are actually immoral? That one would have to be at least a little bit moral to know what morality is and therefore choose not to be moral ?

        That would explain Washington a little bit.

        1. Social Justice is neither   2 months ago

          Would also explain the absolute lack of self awareness of leftists like you.

    3. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      Or that sexual morality is not superior to other considerations when electing a public official.

    4. psmoot   2 months ago

      I'd be interested in knowing what proportion of people have had an affair versus say it's immoral. Some quick searching indicates 20-25% of American adults are believed to have fooled around at least once. That sounds about right. Well, 1 in 4 sounds high but 1 in 10 sounds low.

      Of course, there might be 10-15% who believe it's wrong but did it anyway. Or who had an affair, experienced the consequences, and changed their minds.

    5. Rick James   2 months ago

      What's John F. Kennedy, chopped liver?

    6. dan1650   2 months ago

      At least Biden kept it in the family. More Democrats turnout to vote for ole joe after reading Ashley's diary than at any time in history.

  3. SQRLSY   2 months ago

    Hey conservatives!!! How about a “Grand Compromise”? Y’all give up your “abortion boners”, in exchange for lib-tards giving up their “gun boners”?

    This looks like a prime opportunity for me to explain a few things I’ve learned on this planet, while becoming a geezer. A few things, that is, about human nature, and excessive self-righteousness, tribalism, the “rush to judge” others, and the urge to punish.

    “Team R” politician: “The debt is too large, and government is too powerful. If you elect ME, I will FIX that budget-balance problem SOON! But, first things first! THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE ARE GETTING ABORTIONS!!! We must make the liberals CRY for their sins! AFTER we fix that RIGHT AWAY, we’ll get you your budget balanced and low taxes!”

    “Team D” politician: “The debt is too large, and I’ll get that fixed soon, I promise you, if you elect ME! First, the more important stuff, though: THOSE PEOPLE OVER THERE ARE OWNING GUNS!!! We must PROTECT the American People from guns and gun-nuts!!! AFTER we fix that RIGHT AWAY, we’ll get our budgets balanced!”

    And then we gripe and gripe as Government Almighty grows and grows, and our freedoms shrink and shrink. And somehow, the budget never DOES get balanced!

    Now LISTEN UP for the summary: Parasites and politicians (but I repeat myself) PUSSY GRAB US ALL by grabbing us by… Guess what… by our excessive self-righteousness, tribalism, the “rush to judge” others, and the urge to PUNISH-PUNISH-PUNISH those “wrong” others! Let’s all STOP being such fools, and STOP allowing the politicians OF BOTH SIDES from constantly pussy-grabbing us all, right in our urge to… Pussy-grab the “enemies”, which is actually ALL OF US (and our freedoms and our independence, our ability to do what we want, without getting micro-managed by parasites)!!!

    Shorter and sweeter: The pussy-grabbers are actually pussy-grabber-grabbers, grabbing us all in our pussy-grabbers. Let us all (as best as we can) AMPUTATE our OWN nearly-useless-anyways pussy-grabbers, and the pussy-grabber-grabbers will NOT be able to abuse us all NEARLY ass much ass these assholes are doing right now!

    Or do you ENJOY seeing extra tax money of yours endlessly wasted ass BOTH SIDES pussy-grab each other in grandstanding maneuvers that actually do us no good whatsoever?

    The likes of Der TrumpfenFarter-Fuhrer and Ron DeSatan spend OODLES of taxpayer dollars “making the libs cry” with UDDERLY stupid KulturKampf wars (“Drag Queen Shows” cum to mind), while said Libs spend OUR money getting their panties in a wad concerning should-be-free speech (“trigger warnings” etc. for the snowflakes) on campuses. And ONLY brilliant geniuses like me can actually see that we’re all, collectively, getting abused by letting the political pussy-grabber-grabbers, grab us by our pussy-grabbers!!! WTF will it take for us to WAKE THE FUCK UP?!?!?

    You people are too stupid and too self-righteous to even see your stupidity and self-righteousness. I pity the fools! Keep right on letting the parasitical politicians grab you by Your PervFected Pussy-Grabbers, then, You Perfect FOOLS, and SUFFER the effects of your foolishness, till MAYBE one day ye will wake up!!!

    The collectivist pussy-grabbers of BOTH SIDES reveal their evil, stupid, self-righteous pussy-grabbing… By pussy-grabbing each other, all day, every day! And their “leaders” abuse us all day, every day, by grabbing us all, right in our self-righteous pussy-grabbers, while we’d ALL be MUCH better off amputating our own useless pussy-grabbers!

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      Hey conservatives!!! How about a “Grand Compromise”? Y’all give up your “abortion boners”, in exchange for lib-tards giving up their “gun boners”?

      Yeah, like that's the central disagreement here. Hey, what say we bring in Nick Gillespie to tell us how the biggest difference between left and right is marginal tax rates.

      1. SQRLSY   2 months ago

        The central problem is ass listed... Ass shit has been for ??? tens of thousands of years at least!

        You people are too stupid and too self-righteous to even see your stupidity and self-righteousness.

        On BOTH sides!!!!

      2. Bruce D   2 months ago

        It's not far from it. Maybe drug boners vs. gun boners. Banners?

  4. Longtobefree   2 months ago

    ALL criminal law is 'legislating morality'.

    1. See.More   2 months ago

      ALL criminal law is 'legislating morality'.

      Just because there is a Venn diagram diagram where some immoral acts and criminal acts intersect does not mean criminal law is "legislating morality." Properly understood, criminal law ought only cover aggression against the equal rights of others.

      1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

        because aggression is …wait for it…immoral

        1. Bruce D   2 months ago

          Just because something is immoral does not necessarily mean that it is right to legally prohibit it. Only if it is an infringement of individual rights is it morally right to prohibit it.

        2. See.More   2 months ago

          because aggression is …wait for it…immoral

          Congratulations. You successfully identified one of those things that is in the Venn diagram intersection between immoral acts and criminal acts.

          Just because one immoral behavior is also criminal does not mean that all immoral behavior is, or ought to be, criminal. If you cannot understand the distinction, then please recuse yourself from voting.

  5. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

    The problem with "don't legislate morality" is that human rights are moral precepts. You cannot assert the existence of rights without asserting the superiority of a particular moral framework.

    "Abortion is considered immoral by 47 percent of Americans. Fifty-two percent disagree, with 21 percent calling it acceptable and 31 percent saying it's not a moral issue."

    The dispute over abortion is an argument over whose rights get priority. Does the pregnant woman have the absolute right to control her bodily functions despite that reducing the child she is carrying to her property without a human right to not be killed without just cause? A law prioritizing the woman's right is just as much legislating morality as a law prioritizing the child's right.

    ""Thirty-five percent say it's immoral for patients to choose to end their lives with the help of a doctor. The death penalty is labeled immoral by 34 percent of us."

    Socially left libertarians argue to enact legislation protecting the former and banning the latter, asserting the superiority of their moral point of view.. The "don't legislate morality" canard is a question begging assertion that presumes the moral framework the person making that plea desires is not a moral point of view at all, but some kind of obvious neutral default position.

    1. JesseAz (RIP CK)   2 months ago

      Even with the abortion question it is dishonest as they sum it as any abortion when vast majority do want regulations after 20 weeks.

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        Yes, but I was trying to not get too deep in the weeds about a specific issue, rather than pointing out that one cannot avoid legislating morality based on the nature of the dispute.

    2. MasterThief   2 months ago

      The funny part of this is that libertarianism has zero influence in a world that lacks strong moral convictions. Property rights are a moral issue.
      It's especially ironic when Reason advocates for third world immigrants who don't share the basics of our moral convictions. They say not to look at Somalians regarding Somalian fraud while studiously ignoring that they have a culture that doesn't consider fraud and theft to be immoral.
      You have to set guard rails and those are going to be determined by morality. It's especially hilarious for this argument to be made by people who oppose the death penalty. Absent that morality-in-law, your average murderer would be killed by the family of the victim.

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        As I wrote above, it comes from a cognitive dissonance that when people who are asserting their moral framework are "legislating morality" but when you assert what you think is correct it is not you imposing your morality on the world.

      2. damikesc   2 months ago

        Hell, also ignores that Democrats are getting REALLY tight with hardcore Islamists, who are known for quite brutally legislating morality.

        The sane bitches who whined about "The Handmaid's Tale" are now anxious to start blowing their beloved Muslim overlords, who are well-known for their treatment of women.

    3. Roberta   2 months ago

      Why assume any of that? Who says there has to be a moral basis of law? It's just a set of rules that we can get along with, and the smoother the better. A legal system should try to minimize disputes to begin with, and deal with them with as little fuss as possible as they arise.

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        Again, any assertion of rights is a moral claim. You cannot make law based on respecting rights without asserting a particular moral framework. The NAP is a moral framework. It is not something that you can avoid, unless you want to give up the idea of human rights.

        "It's just a set of rules that we can get along with, and the smoother the better."

        And there is the cognitive dissonance. My moral preferences are not actually a species of morality. Other people's moral preferences I disagree with are, and therefore an unwarranted imposition on me.

        1. Rick James   2 months ago

          You can take the morality out of the human rights equation if everyone agrees that they are nothing more than a social construct, created by a consensus of the powerful-- and are subject to come and go as the majority demands.

          *clears throat*

          Let's see where that takes us.

          1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

            Nowhere good.

            1. Rick James   2 months ago

              NO SPOILERS!

        2. mad.casual   2 months ago

          There are legal systems that actively try to minimize disputes. People who can't speak freely and all subsist on cricket rations tend to be way less uppity about their personal conflicts or disparate social positions. Especially if you put a bullet in dissenters with as little fuss as possible.

      2. mad.casual   2 months ago

        A legal system should try to minimize disputes to begin with

        Because 'design by committee' never produced any objectively or morally terrible outcomes?

        Why can't everything be as easy as a 3/5ths compromise?!?!

    4. See.More   2 months ago

      The problem with "don't legislate morality" is that human rights are moral precepts...

      Natural Law and Natural Rights are ethics not morals.

      1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

        From your linked article:

        "The Oxford Dictionary definition of ethics is:

        “NOUN – 1. [USUALLY TREATED AS PLURAL] moral principles that govern a person’s behaviour or the conducting of an activity: medical ethics also enter into the question.

        [USUALLY TREATED AS SINGULAR] the branch of knowledge that deals with moral principles: neither metaphysics nor ethics is the home of religion.”

        So the definition of "ethics" cites "moral principles"? Seems like we are dancing on the head of a pin here, but OK.

  6. swillfredo pareto   2 months ago

    Extra-marital affairs?? Pornography?? Those are the critical moral issues to the libertarians at Reason?

    Jesus fucking Christ these are fringe issues, but do explain why Reason is fast becoming a joke. Start with first principles and see if they provide any guidance.

    1. Roberta   2 months ago

      Reason didn't choose them, they were just what polling was available on cheaply. Pew, apparently, and not commissioned by Reason.

      1. mad.casual   2 months ago

        Recursive cud-chewing isn't really any better than first hand cud-chewing.

        Presumably, 100% of people oppose unequivocal murder. If only 50% do, then the pair-wise social contract marriage that is supported by 100% of people takes a distinctly more "murder-suicide pact" tone on the "till death do us part" clause.

  7. Thoritsu   2 months ago

    The reason not to legislate morality is NOT just because people disagree on the details. It is generally because it is victimless, and the government should leave people alone unless they compel another to servitude. THAT is the reason not to legislate virtually everything in the enumeration.

  8. Michael Ejercito   2 months ago
  9. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

    Officials do not impose laws on the people because it's a good idea, or because the people agree on the issue, or because the laws will stop bad behavior or because the laws will make the world a better place. Officials impose laws because they CAN and because they crave power personally. They like being able to push other people around. All it takes to pass a law is a majority in the legislature. Only fifty percent plus one other politicians who also crave the same power you crave have to agree to pass the law. All you have to do is say, "The internet harms children." It sounds plausible to some voters and who wants to say, "Harming children is okay!" The fact that it's impossible for the internet to harm children never quite makes it through the fog in most peoples' brains. No one wants to ever admit that their child watched porn because they are deficient at parenting.

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      I guess you’ve never encountered Chesterton’s Fence

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        I have encountered it and "cleared it away" because I don't see the use of it. It's also a stupid idea in the first place. When do we decide that we "understand" the situation enough to regulate it? And who gets to decide that the situation is thoroughly understood?

  10. Rob Misek   2 months ago

    People who disagree with correctly applied logic and science are stupid.

    People who lie are irrational.

    Most Americans are stupid and irrational.

    How could they be expected to agree on anything?

    1. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      No one agrees with your irrational stupid Nazi ass

      1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

        This is an article about morality. Jews and Zionist occupied government advocates need not comment.

        Hahaha. I’m not seeing any Jews bragging in public.

  11. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    Okay, now how do you factor in all the liars? Cheaters will lie too...

    According to recent Pew Research polling, 90 percent of us believe it's immoral for married people to have an extramarital affair.

    1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

      When people can’t, don’t want to or don’t know how to recognize the objective difference between right and wrong, reality, there will be conflict when they act.

      That’s effectively the great conundrum over morality.

      Lying is what people who don’t want to recognize reality do.

      1. MWAocdoc   2 months ago

        There is no objective difference between right and wrong because you have not and cannot define them. The only proper subject for legislation is action by one that causes objective harm to others. If you shoot someone, there is doubt that harm was done to him. The only question left to decide was whether you had a good reason to shoot him. It is a purely pragmatic system, not relying on subjective definitions or assessments of "right" or "wrong." We do not allow one person to shoot another person - not because it's wrong, but for the purely objective reason that it leads to an unacceptable social situation. We allow someone to shoot another person in self-defence - not because it's "right" but because not permitting self-defence would eliminate one of the most powerful inducements for individuals to participate in society. If you want to "ban" something like murder, or prostitution, or drugs, first you have to prove an unacceptable objective social outcome. But then you have to prove that you can objectively define the thing to be banned and that your intervention won't be more harmful than the banned thing is.

        1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

          Are you trying to argue that the concept of harm is any less complex than the concept of wrong? It isn’t.

          Civilization has developed many laws to specifically define both, so they can be objectively proven in courts of justice.

          That’s why there are so many laws and why they are a work in progress to refine to actually represent justice.

          Laws that represent justice do nothing more than legislate morality. Wrong laws do neither.

          They are objectively understood, created, proven and scrutinized with correctly applied logic and science.

          This is what people don’t realize and why they think morality is a conundrum instead of the justice it inspires.

  12. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    Curious. How did this study manage to not have any Muslim folks polled?

    At least 90 percent of Catholics, Protestants, and Jews agree.

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      Because that fucks up the LGBTQI2MAP+s for Palestine narrative.

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      It’s pretty sad that not long ago 90% agreed on morality.
      Now, it’s moral to punch (anyone you think is a) Nazi, and immoral to “deadname” a mentally ill cosplayer on brainwashed minor.

  13. Neutral not Neutered   2 months ago

    Forget all this garbage.

    let's focus on what actually matters. In a free society as designed a person can do whatever they want and express themselves however they want.

    To each their own, whatever floats your boat. I won't step on your toes, you do not step on mine and everything will be fine.

    What makes people different? Their moral take. Is that wrong? Only when a law is broken.

    Are laws considered morally when voted on? Yes. Do people vote for candidates whom appear to have similar moral standards? Yes. Should this be the final answer over all else? Absolutely not. Why? Because people are different.

    I will not step on your toes, do not step on mine and everything will be fine.

    The government should have nothing to do with setting moral standards. Laws defend what are considered immoral actions by some, that is what makes society free.

    1. Thoritsu   2 months ago

      Right! That is the real reason not to legislate morality!!! It is victimless!

  14. TJJ2000   2 months ago

    Legal 'GUNS' against those 'icky' people *is* the problem with moral legislation.

    You can argue, advertise and push for moral values all you want.
    When you start using 'GUNS' to push those values you are the EVIL.

    So 93% say affairs are bad ... Is that justification to chase them with a 'GUN'?
    That's all government is. That is all that separates it from other entities.
    Only when people start to acknowledge 'what it is' will the tyranny stop.

    Government is there to ****DEFEND**** the peoples freedom against tyrannical actors.
    Not to be the tyrannical actors themselves.

    For example; They are there to prevent 'armed-theft'.
    *NOT* to preform 'armed-theft' on your behalf.

  15. Rick James   2 months ago

    I like that in our "Post COVID" world-- after everything that's happened since 2019, with all the DEI, the tearing down of statues, the cities and states renaming schools, streets, places, the funding of various non-profits and NGOs with taxpayer dollars--via various legislatures, masks, lockdowns, killing grandma, pandemics of the unvaccinated, how it was not enough to not be racist-- you had to be actively anti-racist, that we're back to discussing legislation of dirty pictures as the central question of legislating morality.

  16. See.More   2 months ago

    No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another; and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him...

    - Thomas Jefferson to Francis W. Gilmer, 1816-06-07

    1. Rick James   2 months ago

      A man who owned slaves. Canceled bro.

      [morality] is nothing more than a social construct, created by a consensus of the powerful--

      1. Ersatz   2 months ago

        [morality] is nothing more than a social construct, created by a consensus of the powerful--
        Of the powerful? perhaps, or maybe of the plebes who share certain moral precepts in common and THAT becomes the power. ... which, of course can then be hijacked by the unscrupulous...

        ...as with due process!

        1. Rick James   2 months ago

          51% agree that ____________.

  17. damikesc   2 months ago

    *sigh*

    "That's as close to universal agreement as you'll ever get on anything, though it raises some interesting questions about who opened all those Ashley Madison accounts."

    Best I can find, Ashley Madison had about 15M subs in the US as of 2025. 80M worldwide, but about 15M domestically.

    There are, what, 300M adults in the US? That makes 15M, what, 5%? Seems to fit the numbers exceptionally well.

    Math is not that hard. Really.

    1. Mickey Rat   2 months ago

      Hey, they are liberal arts majors. They are a bit mentally slow in that area.

    2. But SkyNet is a Private Company   2 months ago

      I thought it was 40:1 bots vs lonely dudes?

    3. mad.casual   2 months ago

      2025 is not exactly a peak year for AM users.

      It was closer to 70M at its peak but, as per the internet thus far, never required you to (e.g.) upload a copy of your marriage certificate or even a photo ID to sign up.

      Not to mention that AM and AFF were two of the OG websites to use bots and/or fake accounts to drive engagement.

      It's a bit like going to a strip club and concluding that Russia and and various small towns across the US are populated by nothing but attractive women looking to get a leg up by becoming nurses or teachers in the US/big city.

      1. damikesc   2 months ago

        I'd also mention that the 70M was, almost guaranteed, a worldwide number. It is not easy finding US-only numbers.

  18. Bruce D   2 months ago

    Not everything that is "immoral" is it morally justified prohibiting by force or threats thereof. Only infringements upon individual rights, or initiations of force or fraud, or denial of consent over one's person or property justify the use of force to prohibit. Lying to one's spouse, or lying in general, may be immoral. But unless it constitutes some material fraud or denial of consent, it's not morally justified to use force to sanction or prohibit it.

  19. Bruce D   2 months ago

    Quiz question for ya: what is the cause of the most evil in human history? Answer: the "good".

    More evil has been committed, more people have been murdered, holocausted, in the name of the "good" than for any other cause in human history.

    Ya think the nazis didn't think they were right? How about the commies? Ya think the Stalinists, Maoists, commies in general, who murdered 10s of millions didn't think they were right in doing so?

    The most dangerous thing in the world is false-righteousness. Much, if not most, self-righteousness is actually false-righteousness. There's a new term for ya - false-righteousness - presenting evil as good, or good as evil, or that which is not good as good, or that which is not evil as evil.

  20. BigFish92672   2 months ago

    The Left liberals say blood relatives can have sex with each other as long as they are consenting adults. That's all I need to know about morality in the USA

    1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

      And the right lets Jews provoke them to bomb babies in illegal wars of aggression. (The left does too)

      It’s not about left and right. It’s about right and wrong MORALITY.

      Are you ready to accept the truth or not?

      Do you know how to recognize the objective difference between right and wrong?

      Correctly applied logic and science resolves conflict.

      1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

        Pretty sure you're just lobbying for what the middle-east already has.
        Endless 'religious' political wars.

        Why's it any of your F'En business what others do with their own lifes?
        How does that affect you in anyway what-so-ever let alone affect you enough to pack a 'Gun' against them?

        1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

          Okay, let’s look at your argument logically.

          If the logic is correct and we’re both rational we’ll be in agreement.

          “ Why's it any of your F'En business what others do with their own lifes?”

          The logic

          If what you do with your life affects anybody else it is anybody’s business.

          Bombing anybody affects anybody
          Lying to anybody affects anybody
          Cheating anybody affects anybody
          Using earth’s resources affects everyone on earth

          Logic. Shall I continue? Can you rationally refute it?

          If not, are we in agreement?

          1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

            Except not a single point you made represents a personal life (right or wrong) moral question.
            There is a difference.

            1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

              Are you suggesting that killing, cheating, lying and wasting are not moral issues?

              1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

                Depends on if the act violates another's 'inherent' individuals rights.
                Which in my comprehension is an ethical issue not a moral one.

                No. There isn't any inherent individual right to not be cheated on. You might have a case of marriage contract violation. Otherwise cheating is a 'moral' issue not an ethical issue. Lying also fits within that same scope. I'm not even sure what you mean by 'wasting' (E=mc2).

                1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

                  Thus describes the very difference between an act of 'Gun' aggression versus 'Gun' defense (Gov-Gun). You can't shove a moral value onto another because you aren't defending yourself what-so-ever. You're the aggressor. You can defend your own life, liberty and property though (ethical).

                2. dan1650   2 months ago

                  Ethical means being Morally correct; principled and good. It seems a lot of people don't really understand morality which is the difference between good and evil and right and wrong. If something is evil and wrong it doesn't matter how someone fells about it or what they think about it, it is still evil and wrong. If they don't realize that then they are immoral.

                  1. TJJ2000   2 months ago

                    ChatGPT:
                    Simple way to remember:
                    Moral = Me (personal beliefs)
                    Ethical = Everyone (shared rules)

                    So long as 'ethical' (the shared rules) is comprised of ensuring Individual Rights as the US Constitution defines the USA; I'd say you're just trying to sell a load of BS to legislate your personal 'morals'.

                    1. Rob Misek   2 months ago

                      You’re just a liar like Trump.

                      Individual or group is completely irrelevant.

                      When your lies are exposed you demonstrate your complete lack of morals or ethics by doubling down, lying even more.

                      That is neither ethical nor moral.

                      moral
                      /ˈmôr(ə)l/
                      Moral refers to principles of right and wrong behavior, ethics, and virtuous character, often sanctioned by conscience. It defines standards for good conduct (e.g., honesty, fairness) and can denote the lesson taught by a story. It is commonly used to describe actions, obligations, or personal integrity.
                      Merriam-Webster

                      ethical
                      /ˈeTHəkəl/
                      Ethical refers to conforming to accepted standards of social or professional conduct, generally meaning morally right, honest, and honorable. It involves acting in ways that avoid harm, such as fairness in business or upholding moral principles. Ethical behavior implies doing the right thing, often, even when no one is watching.
                      Merriam-Webster

Please log in to post comments

Mute this user?

  • Mute User
  • Cancel

Ban this user?

  • Ban User
  • Cancel

Un-ban this user?

  • Un-ban User
  • Cancel

Nuke this user?

  • Nuke User
  • Cancel

Un-nuke this user?

  • Un-nuke User
  • Cancel

Flag this comment?

  • Flag Comment
  • Cancel

Un-flag this comment?

  • Un-flag Comment
  • Cancel

Latest

The Foreign-Born Heroes Who Chose America

Agustina Vergara Cid | 5.25.2026 7:00 AM

Japan's Smoking Bans Make a Lot More Sense Than America's

Katarina Hall | From the June 2026 issue

Brickbat: Texas Trouble

Charles Oliver | 5.25.2026 4:00 AM

The DJ Who Brought America Weird Al, Tom Lehrer, and 'Cows With Guns'

Henry Olsen | 5.24.2026 6:00 AM

Abigail Spanberger Vetoes Mandatory Collective Bargaining, Defying Virginia Unions

C. Jarrett Dieterle | 5.23.2026 7:00 AM

Recommended

  • About
  • Browse Topics
  • Events
  • Staff
  • Jobs
  • Donate
  • Advertise
  • Subscribe
  • Contact
  • Media
  • Shop
  • Amazon
Reason Facebook@reason on XReason InstagramReason TikTokReason YoutubeApple PodcastsReason on FlipboardReason RSS Add Reason to Google

© 2026 Reason Foundation | Accessibility | Privacy Policy | Terms Of Use

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

r

I WANT FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS!

Help Reason push back with more of the fact-based reporting we do best. Your support means more reporters, more investigations, and more coverage.

Make a donation today! No thanks
r

I WANT TO FUND FREE MINDS AND FREE MARKETS

Every dollar I give helps to fund more journalists, more videos, and more amazing stories that celebrate liberty.

Yes! I want to put my money where your mouth is! Not interested
r

SUPPORT HONEST JOURNALISM

So much of the media tries telling you what to think. Support journalism that helps you to think for yourself.

I’ll donate to Reason right now! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK

Push back against misleading media lies and bad ideas. Support Reason’s journalism today.

My donation today will help Reason push back! Not today
r

HELP KEEP MEDIA FREE & FEARLESS

Back journalism committed to transparency, independence, and intellectual honesty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

STAND FOR FREE MINDS

Support journalism that challenges central planning, big government overreach, and creeping socialism.

Yes, I’ll support Reason today! No thanks
r

PUSH BACK AGAINST SOCIALIST IDEAS

Support journalism that exposes bad economics, failed policies, and threats to open markets.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BAD IDEAS WITH FACTS

Back independent media that examines the real-world consequences of socialist policies.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BAD ECONOMIC IDEAS ARE EVERYWHERE. LET’S FIGHT BACK.

Support journalism that challenges government overreach with rational analysis and clear reasoning.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

JOIN THE FIGHT FOR FREEDOM

Support journalism that challenges centralized power and defends individual liberty.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

BACK JOURNALISM THAT PUSHES BACK AGAINST SOCIALISM

Your support helps expose the real-world costs of socialist policy proposals—and highlight better alternatives.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks
r

FIGHT BACK AGAINST BAD ECONOMICS.

Donate today to fuel reporting that exposes the real costs of heavy-handed government.

Yes, I’ll donate to Reason today! No thanks