hardie@uf-csg.UUCP (Bruce @ Univ. of Wallamaloo) (01/07/85)
Well, the flak is flying over the question of the equivalence of "legal" and "moral". This is my 2 cents worth. [1] Laws are passed by people(legislators/dictators/etc) who are fallible. In the U. S., few laws are passed in their original form or intention, what withthe snafus of a two house legislature. Also, vested interests modify any law affecting them (Witness the tobacco lobby). Thus, *any* U. S. law is not necessarily a correct moral judgement, and, knowing the strength of the profit motive, may be blatantly immoral. [2] Enter *morals*. As far as I know, a person's morality is a product of their religion ( or life philosophy ). Therefore all morals are the result of individual interpretation of myriad experiences. Thus, morals are not applicable to anyone save the holder of that view. Examples of [1]: The auto industry defeating the airbag requirement even though it would save lives. The above mentioned tobacco industry staying in business at all, when there are *no* benefits from smoking. The lack of (until recently) an excess profits tax on the oil companies' huge income from petroleum. etc... Examples of [2]: The recent open letter from the Catholic nuns expressing the need for discussion on abortion, contrary to the Church's stance. The Thugee (sp?) cult in India, members of which considered ritual murder a good thing, but who were otherwise mainstream in their moral beliefs. The abortion clinic bombers, who feel that the property damage and possible injury caused by their bombs are outweighed by the destruction of the clinics. A law may be moral, and morals may be laws, but they are not equivalent.Is it immoral to drive 85mph to get a man dying of heart failure to a hospital? It certainly is illegal. It is perfectly legal to hand someone a contract, explain it to them neglecting a clause, have them sign it, and then activate that clause, because if they read and sign the contract, they are assumed to understand it. But is it moral? Whether or not abortion is legal has no bearing on its morality. The moral judgement of abortion should have no effect on its legality. -- Pete Hardie, Univ. of Florida, CIS Gould acct:..!akgua!uf-csv!uf-csg!hardie
ark@alice.UUCP (Andrew Koenig) (01/13/85)
Bruce Hardie gives three examples of laws he claims are incorrect moral judgments: The auto industry defeating the airbag requirement even though it would save lives. The above mentioned tobacco industry staying in business at all, when there are *no* benefits from smoking. The lack of (until recently) an excess profits tax on the oil companies' huge income from petroleum. I wish he had chosen better examples. The first two are examples of MORALLY CORRECT stands taken by the government: doing otherwise requires adoption of the principle that the government has the right to decide what's good for people whether or not they agree, and that way lies totalitarianism. As for his third example, the idea of an "excess profits tax" requires adoption of the principle that financial success beyond some government- determined threshold is bad. I can hardly consider the government's present policy of penalizing success and glorifying failure to be a moral one. Further discussion of this in net.politics, please.