kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) (12/15/84)
>> = me > = Mr. Torek >> So how do you know that the majority does not support laws the way >> I do? > >I said the majority doesn't support them only for narrowly >self-interested reasons. ... > >> ...and if passing a law reduces that probability [of injury] >> without excessive infringement to what we value as "liberty", then >> the majority may support such laws. >"Excessive infringement" -- a moral judgement. >> ...people have the ability to place "themselves" as "others" >An ability that has a great deal to do with morality! >> I am not disputing the fact that laws may be passed based on moral >> grounds, but I am disputing your contention that all laws are >> impositions based on moral beliefs; >Then you have already conceded one of my main points, namely that >"imposing morality" isn't always wrong! Granted? Perhaps you never Well, neither is imposing morality always right! therefore, opposing imposition of morals isnt always wrong! >disputed that. Anyway, the contention that you do want to dispute >is, I still maintain, correct... >> you have given me the impression that either 1) you have a table of >> moral truths; or 2) you are using the words moral and immoral to >> describe every action which you like or dislike, approve or disapprove. >Try 3) I am using the word "moral" (as opposed to NONmoral, not as in the >opposite of IMmoral) to mean "having to do with people's beliefs about >right and wrong, esp. w.r.t. beliefs about proper treatment of others". >Got it? See the (huge) difference? >> There are laws against letting out official/military secrets, what do >> you think is the major motivation, morals or self interest? >The primary motivation is self interest, BUT crucial to support for >such laws is people's (at least implicit) belief that the laws do not >wrongfully interfere with free speech, etc. You are probably aware >of the current controversy over Reagan's secrecy rules for scientific >exchanges of info. Do you deny that the controversy involves moral >beliefs? No? Q.E.D.! Come on now, what kind of reasoning is this? Consider this: Suppose I crave for an apple, and I go to the refrigerator, I find that I have peaches as well, and I also like peaches, so, I took one apple and one peach and eat them. Now, (following the type of reasoning above), are you going to argue that I ate an apple because I like peaches? I may have eaten just ONE (not two or three)apple because I like to eat a peach as well( and even this may not be right, I could have decided to eat just one apple regardless of whether I like peaches), but I certainly did not eat an apple because I like peaches! (Substituting "self-interest for national security" for "craving for apple", and the interest in free speech for liking peaches, you'll see why I object to the reasoning above). To be more precise, I would say the controversy is between the interest in national security versus the interest in freedom of expression and the freedom to spread infomation. The key is to what extent do we think such freedoms reduces national security, and to what extent such a fear is realistic, and to what extent limitations on such freedom of expression and information traveling hampers our liberty, the gathering of knowledge and the progress of science. Now you can group all these into a bundle and say they are morals, but that is hardly saying anything. >> Even when some actions are immoral, does that [necessarily (-pvt)] >> mean that we must passed laws? > >Did I ever say it does? (hint: NO!) > >> So give us the legitimate reasons, tell us, according to your moral >> truths, how immoral is abortion, is it worth a penalty of ... or ... > >No deal. My position is not at issue here. The questions are: 1) >is imposing morality always wrong? and 2) Can there be such a thing >as a law that does not impose morality? And the answer to both is no. >... > --The THIRD side (<-- see that folks?) > Paul V. Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 I'm getting tired of this, we could have equally substitute the word moral with "ethic" and then we would be arguing about what do you mean by ethics. Fact remains that there are many reasons for passing laws: it may be in our self-interest (e.g order versus anarchy, anti-pollution laws, national security,etc), our idea of fairness and justice (e.g. non discrimination, criminals be punished and victims compensated if possible,etc), our vision for a "better" society (e.g. less hunger, less illiterates, better health care, privacy and liberty etc), our vision for future (preservation of wildlife, virgin forests, etc). These are just a few that I can think of right this moment. Now you can group all of these (and presumably other, which I have not thought of for the moment) considerations and call them morals if you like, but it is these considerations that GIVE RISE to what you would call "morals", not the other way round. Thus, self-interest may give rise to "morals", not "morals" that give rise to self-interest (unless you say it is in our interest to obey the law, but thats evading the source) I am sure you know full well that "moral" (and worse still, "moral truths/Truths"), can mean a world of difference depending on what one's upbringing,experience and faith is. One only need to compare one's "moral truths" with that of the Ayatollah, or a Catholic priest, or a fundamentalist preacher, or a believer in the Dialectic, or a head-hunting tribesman to have an idea of the "moral" confusion. But perhaps all of these are mere quibbles over definitions, lets get back to what the abortion issue is about. From your replies to Brian Peterson, I'd gather that you think that a fetus/embryo should be considered as a "person", i.e. the rights of the ordinary person should be granted to the fetus/embryo. However, if this is the case, abortion, being the cause of a fetus life, should then be considered as the cause of a person's life, and since it is premeditated, it should be murder. Now except for one or two raving lunatics, hardly anyone would consider prosecuting the person(s) involved for murder, why? In fact if one were to think about WHY we would hesitate to do so, one would perhaps see abortion as a pro-choicer sees it. Not only is there the total dependency on the mother, there is the "right" of the parents/woman to decide on their/her own family planning. Should society has the right to force any of its member to bear a child (be it for "punishment" or whatever), without providing the sure means of taking care of the fetus/child-to-be outside of the woman's body? Technology, eventually, may be able to come up with "fetus banks" where embryo/fetus may live and grow without the need of the mother, but such advances have yet to come, and even when they are available, is society willing to foot the cost, so that not just the rich can afford such "luxury"? Some have argued as though the "rights" of the fetus should be absolute, and I think some are honest in this. But my suspicion is that many are not (in this I do not include you, Mr Torek, but I do think you have not been as vocal in differentiating your views from theirs as I think you honestly believe), for I am of the opinion that even if the technology mentioned exists,many anti-abortionists would be the ones to scream that society has no obligation to take care of unwanted fetuses, that those who are pregnant (regardless of whether it is their wish ) should bear the sole burden (as a punishment of their stupidity, their bad luck, their "immoral" behavior,or whatever) Indeed, should taxpayers shoulder such burdens? Are there matters that deserve our money more than fetus lives? What should be our priorities? Are taxpayers willing to pay? Although from the way some anti-abrotionists have screamed about fetus "right to life", you would think that coughing out tax money for such applications would be for them, a duty, if not no dissent at all. In addition, is it not wise, to leave children to those people who really want them and have the will to provide and care for them, and who decide to have them, instead of forcing them on people who are too young,or who have no wish and will to care for them? The "can be adopted" argument can hardly be reasons against abortion, for first, the woman is still being forced to carry the pregnancy to the full term, and second, there is no guarantee that the child would be adopted. Now, as one way to provide such a guarantee, I suggest that names of all anti-abortionists be registered, so that whenever an unwanted child is born, the child be taken care of by a randomly chosen person from the anti-abortion list. Are the anti-abortionists willing to subject to this? If not, why force others to have babies that they do not want? ihnp4!iwlc8!klw