flink@umcp-cs.UUCP (12/16/83)
Right on, Liz! Although I'm not a Christian, I join the growing chorus of those who are sick and tired of hearing that "you can't legislate morality." Trying to separate the two would be like trying to separate science from engineering -- it isn't even *logically* possible. Pam said that ... laws are not "legislated morality." They are restraints placed on citizens to avoid the injury of other citizens. In addition to seconding Liz's comments on that statement, I'd like to point out that whether laws are designed to protect citizens (as Pam says) depends on which state or nation you live in. Put differently, it depends on what the lawmakers were trying to do. Perhaps Pam really meant to say laws *ought to be* what she says they *are* -- in which case I would like to point out that that's a moral judgement, and any set of laws based on that judgement would be (in an important sense) legislated morality. Murder, theft, and fraud are illegal, not because they are immoral but because a society which permitted these things could not function. But what does it mean to "function"? Do you mean that society couldn't function *well* if it permitted those things? That would be a moral judgement. On the other hand, if you mean something value-neutral by the term "function", then the obvious question is "why should I care if society does this value-neutral thing called 'functioning'?" --Paul Torek, umcp-cs!flink