On the Limits of Moral Coercion from the Perspective of Integrity

Moral coercion involves three core questions: whether the state can evaluate all moral issues, whether the state has the authority to enforce such evaluations, and how to distinguish the enforceable parts. The state has no right to evaluate all moral issues; instead, it should classify morality into public morality and private morality. Public morality aims to safeguard public interests, involving social order and collective well-being. The state may impose necessary coercion on the basis of law. Private morality, by contrast, relates to individuals’ value choices and private relationships, featuring diversity and non-public nature. The state must remain neutral to avoid value bias. Public morality and private morality differ in terms of purpose, object, and domain. This distinction defines two types of areas: one where commonly agreed-upon standards must be adopted, and the other where moral standards can be freely chosen. Furthermore, the study explores the feasibility and practical limits of mandatory enforcement in the field of public morality, while emphasizing that the state’s neutral stance in private morality is rooted in the comprehensive doctrine— aimed at respecting individual freedom and pluralistic values equally. The research advocates establishing a mechanism for legalizing public morality based on public interests, and strictly restricting state intervention in private domains. This approach is intended to balance the tension between moral authority and individual freedom.