steve (03/29/83)
It's time to stir up the hornets again. This discussion is going to be a little outside of religion, but stay with me - we'll get back to it. My question: What is the role of morality and ethics in the making of the law-of-the-land. My answer: None at all. My contention: Laws are (and ALWAYS have been, right back to the 10 commandments) based on pragmatism, not on morality. Now, right after I put on my asbestos jacket (there, now I got it on) I will present an example: MURDER - I happen to believe that killing another human being is immoral under almost all circumstances. For the sake of argument let us assume that "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" is in fact a moral imperative. Nonetheless, "killing another human being" does not equate to "murder". There are at least three cases in which a member of our society can kill a human being without it being murder: Warfare, defending yourself against violent crime, capital punishment. Now, without discussing the morality of killing in warfare or in self-defense, I would like to present my rationale for this difference: The law against Murder is there in order to preserve the tranquility of the society. The laws of a society are formed for the purely pragmatic purpose of maintaining the order of the society and the safety of the members of that society. When one member of a society commits a negative act against another member of that society they forfeit protection of that society: Killing an enemy soldier in wartime prevents that soldier from destroying the society; killing in self-defense is against a member of the society who is trying to kill you; capital punishment is meted against those caught and convicted of extreme offenses against members of the society. Let's consider two other cases: Traffic laws and tax laws. Most people would not consider running a stop-sign IMMORAL (though maybe stupid) - but laws against it are necessary to protect the members of the society from each other. Likewise tax-laws: now I don't like the tax burden I have any more than anyone else - and if I have a chance to trim the taxes I pay I take it. I think most people do not consider a small amount of prevarication on their taxes to be immoral - but obviously it must be illegal. If it were not no-one would pay their taxes and our government would topple. The point is this: Acts are made illegal not because they are immoral, but rather because they are destabilizing to the society. Consider how this applies to some other acts: Drug use is commonly called a victimless crime and many do not consider it immoral (I don't know about YOU folks, but I have been known to take a toke now and again). It is none-the-less illegal because in the past when it was legal it harmed the society. (Anyone doubting this should read a very chilling article called "Mothers need not fear" in the back of "The cultivators book of marijuana" - published in Eugene Oregon. Before the turn of this century, there were what is known as "baby's friends" - syrups used by mothers to calm their children. What most mothers did not know was that they were loaded with Morphine or Codeine or Heroin - and the babies soon became addicted to the stuff, often resulting in their ultimate deaths.) Public nudity is a very interesting case: It may or may not be legal depending on where you are and what you are doing when you are nude! In fact, the basis for this double standard is quite pragmatic: The effect of a nude woman at 5th and Broadway in NY could cost someone their life in a car accident. The same woman at a nude beach will have no negative effects on anyone. THEREFORE: An act should be illegal if-and-only-if common occurrence of the act would destabilize the society. An act which many consider moral but which would be destabilizing should be illegal. An act which many consider immoral but which is not destabilizing should be left to private choice - it is not a matter for the law. Now is where we get back to religion: This is the reason for the separation of church and state; and why the mere fact that all the christians out there consider something immoral is irrelevant to whether there should be a law against it. The law is not concerned with morality. Post script: It has been years since I read the bible, so I am not sure I can remember all of the commandments, and certainly not in order. I did at one time consider all of them, and came up with pragmatic reasons for all of them: THOU SHALT NOT KILL. However, consider the Hebrews in wartime. Consult my discussion of murder above. THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. This is generally considered to be a moral imperative to follow the convention of life-long monogamous marriage. Consider: A society that follows this will have no venereal disease! (This is the same reason the Hebrews did not eat swine - they were therefore not inflicted with trichinosis.) THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. COVET NOT THY NEIGHBORS WIFE, NOR HIS etc. Well, I think these two are fairly obvious. HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. My understanding is that this was not intended for young children to their parents, but rather so that the old people of the society were cared for by their grown children. Consider the destabilizing effects on the society if the old people are abandoned to starve. (Did someone mention Social Security?) THOU SHALT HONOR THE LORD THY GOD etc. THOU SHALT MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGES. Well, the Hebrews lived in a theocracy. Violations of these laws therefore weakened the power of the priesthood - the government. Surely this would impact the stability of the culture! I don't remember the others - this is seven of them. The point of all this is: The laws have to be considered in terms of the culture they existed in. If the context changes, they have to be reinterpreted - or discarded entirely. Consider my favorite case: Adultery. There have been major advances in birth-control and disease treatment. (Herpes to the contrary; it is a problem now but won't be within 20 years. They are experimenting with a vaccine for it now - and that's good enough to remove it as a problem.) Given that venereal disease can be controlled and is no longer a threat to the culture, this one must be re-examined - and indeed has spontaneously been re-examined within our culture in the last 20 years. I would contend that premarital sex is no longer a problem - but that extra-marital sex probably still is! Thus I do not condemn the former, but do the latter. Well, I have my asbestos flack-jacket on and anxiously await the flood of soul-cleaning holy flame about to descend on my poor body. Don't quote the bible to me - I don't believe in it and don't consider it a valid source of morality or anything else. Prove your contentions with logic and thought, not jingoism; or don't bother to write. Steve Den Beste Tektronix Logic Analyzers [decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-a!steve
tim (03/30/83)
I agree almost entirely with Steve's (not Hutchison -- sorry, I didn't catch the last name) article claiming that the ultimate source for laws should be pragmatism, not religion. My first objection is that it is possible for a purely pragmatic legal structure to disregard human freedoms. It would not greatly destabilize the USA if the executive branch were to take over the media, for instance. Rather than "the stability of the society" as our goal in pragmatism, we should use "the free exercise of the rights of the individual citizens". We then have to define rights; this is where the difficulty with religion comes in. Different people have different ideas of what people's rights are. My feeling is that it is sufficient to say that no one is free to infringe on anyone else's freedoms, but this is a recursive definition and possibly too hard for the masses to live with, due to its requiring thought. (The bottom of the recursion is that certain actions such as murder obviously make it impossible for a person to exercise freedoms.) My second objection is that the laws on recreational drugs were not, as Steve claims, formed because the use of drugs was harming society. Steve provides an example involving patent medicines. This is what the FDA was set up for; the offending substances were being deceptively marketed in a harmful fashion. The FDA was created to control, among other things, the sale of medicines. The Bureau of Narcotics was responsible for the laws against *recreational* use of such substances as marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc. The head of the Bureau was Harry J. Anslinger, a Prohibition agent who found himself out of work when Prohibition ended, and managed through family ties to get the job with the Bureau. He then implemented a massive and deceitful advertising campaign, focusing particularly on marijuana, that led to the almost universal anti-pot attitudes today. He was a bastard, but he was good at what he did. When someone speaks of the "New Prohibition", referring to pot, they are not being metaphorical: the current laws are a direct descendant, through Anslinger, of alcohol Prohibition in this country. Tim Maroney
hutch (03/31/83)
I agree with Tim Maroney on this one. The original article under this discussion was one by Steve Den Beste, for those who didn't catch his name. My own articles will always appear with "...hutch" in the address since Steve is not an uncommon name. Anyway, Tim makes a valid point. The traditional religious position is that there must be a set of absolutes underlying any set of laws, and while I think this would be nice, it is just impractical in a world where human fallibility prevents us from grasping and agreeing on those absolutes. Pragmatism is as good a place as any to start, and the rights of society are pragmatically based on the rights of individuals. (I think this last statement summarizes Tim's point.) Have I ever stated publicly that I am philosophically an anarchist? That is, I believe that since there is no way that any human government can possibly be obedient to the will of God, that any attempt to make such a government is futile. I obey the law, mostly because I find myself in a situation where failure to do so is in defiance of what I believe to be the Laws of God. I also think that it is dangerous and uncharitable (in the sense of lacking in God's merciful love) to expect everyone to obey the Laws that God gives, without the power to do so which He grants. Therefore, I resist the attempts of those of my own faith to install our moral laws as the laws of the land, except where those laws can be determined clearly to be derivable from the basic rights of the individual. As a counterpoint, though, I feel that it is my responsibility to try and prevent any laws which would force me to violate my own moral laws, as well as any of the derivable basic rights of individuals. Since there is no fair way for "society" to decide what laws can abridge the rights of individuals, in what ways, but since some such laws must be made, I have to make the best of this rotten situation. Politically, Steve Hutchison
rah (03/31/83)
One note on a common misconception: "Thou shalt not kill" in modern english is "You shall not murder." It is a prohibition against murder, not all killing. For references see the Oxford English Dictionary entry on "kill" which explicitly quotes the King James Version of the commandment as an example of the use of "kill" with the meaning of "murder." Language does change, please don't use the King James language to justify your thinking. Rich Hammond
bhayes (04/01/83)
#R:dadla-a:-31600:sri-unix:15700006:000:230 sri-unix!bhayes Mar 31 19:14:00 1983 The reason Jews don't eat swine doesn't have anything to do with trichinosis. It's because God said not to eat it. If God had meant to protect us from trichinosis, he would have told us to cook it well before we ate it. -barry
starner (04/10/83)
My question: What is the role of morality and ethics in the making of the law-of-the-land. My answer: None at all. My contention: Laws are (and ALWAYS have been, right back to the 10 commandments) based on pragmatism, not on morality. I think you're over-generalizing. The reason why specific laws were created is really a matter of speculation. I would agree that traffic laws and tax laws were developed for the good of society. But, in my opinion, some laws were developed because they were **always** true. Of course, this requires a belief in absolutes. But I've always believed in some absolutes (e.g. the laws of logic are valid, I exist, etc.). I guess I believe that man is aware of these absolutes but is not aware of why they are true. After all, it certainly is possible that there are things that are true that are not empirically verifiable. Of course, this leaves things in a rather fuzzy state. (How can you be sure of your absolute laws when you don't even know where they came from?) Another point. If laws are just based on pragmatism, there is no reason why I **should** follow them (as long as I don't get caught). After all, why should *I* care about the good of society? Other thoughts, opinions welcome, Guy Starner Bell Telephone Laboratories ihnpf!ih4ep!starner -- Guy Starner ih4ep!starner IH 4A-333 x6526
debray (04/11/83)
I would tend to agree that society's laws have evolved from considerations that are primarily pragmatic : I would, in fact, go so far as to claim that society considers "good" that which maintains the society and ensures its survival, and considers as "bad" that which doesn't. This view has been advanced in the original article, so I see no need to argue it further. Guy Starner says : "But, in my opinion, some laws were developed because they were **always** true. Of course, this requires a belief in absolutes. But I've always believed in some absolutes (e.g. the laws of logic are valid, I exist, etc.). I guess I believe that man is aware of these absolutes but is not aware of why they are true. " While it is a person's prerogative to believe what (s)he wishes to believe, I would like to submit the following for consideration : that even the supposedly "absolute" laws of logic evolved from our observation of the world ; that, as our world-view changes, so does our logic (e.g. at one time it was "logical" to believe that the universe was geocentric ; that Euclid's fifth postulate was inviolable ; that all space was Euclidean ; etc.) ; and therefore, it is possible to postulate, as a gedankenexperiment, worlds that are *fundamentally* different from ours, where the laws of logic would be different as well. My claim is that not even the laws of logic are "absolute" in any (pardon me) absolute sense. We are aware of these "absolutes" and, in many cases, know *why* they are true (structure of the universe etc.). Guy goes on to say that " If laws are just based on pragmatism, there is no reason why I **should** follow them (as long as I don't get caught). After all, why should *I* care about the good of society?" Actually, there *are* a lot of people who don't bother to follow the laws of society, hoping that they won't get caught. The point is that *most* people, by and large, *do* follow the laws of society - not out of some altruistic ideals about the "good of society" (whatever that means), but because society rewards those who follow its laws, e.g. by letting them use its roads and parks and buildings and universities, and punishes those who don't. And this, of course, is an attractive enough deal for most people, which in turn ensures the survival of society. It's all very pragmatic, and really very neat! Saumya K. Debray SUNY at Stony Brook ... allegra!sbcs!debray