kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) (12/01/84)
[me] >> ... some have suggested that every law is "imposition of morals", and >> that even in traffic rules, for example, we have laws because of the >> "belief that there should be a system rather than no system",i.e. that >> it comes from our "beliefs" that having a system is better than no system >> (and presumably better == more moral). I object, ... I dont support >> traffic laws because I think they are "moral", but because I dont want >> to be in a state where I run a high risk of getting run down. [from Paul Torek] > >First of all, the question is not so much why you support them as why >the majority supports them. This raises the second point, namely, is >your motivation purely self-interested as you seem to make it out to be? So how do you know that the majority does not support laws the way I do? Do you have a direct line to the brains of the majority? Is the majority the key to discovering your moral truths? then how come the majority is pro-choice? There may be many reasons for suporting a law, and an important one could well be the recognition that certain actions could cause harm (to anyone of us),i.e. if we are unfortunately the victims-to-be, and if passing a law reduces that probability without excessive infringement to what we value as "liberty", then the majority may support such laws. But perhaps you are too sure of your "moral truths". But personally, my own opinion is that the most harm to mankind were done under the name of "absolute rights" and "moral truths" , not when people are doubtful about what is "right" or "wrong". >If there were a law that allowed *other* people to be run down but not >you, would you support it? Even if you would, I submit that most people >don't think that way; most people will support laws for the sake of pro- >tecting others as well as themselves. THEREFORE the laws are imposed mor- If I were to support such a law, it wouldn't take a genius to see that others would want the same, and if I am the only one protected , others would be out to get me. If you have any imagination beside "moral truths", you would have been able to see that people have the ability to place "themselves" as "others" i.e. it may be "them" now, but "us" the next time. >ality, because -- and this is my third point -- morality is INTERpersonal; >it is concerned with rights and justice and how people treat others. 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; 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. There are laws against letting out official/military secrets, what do you think is the major motivation, morals or self interest? Please dont give me the shit about it is based on the moral belief that it is immoral to "sellout", if we do not want to be killed or defeated in a war, it is because we do not want to be killed or defeated, not because it is immoral to let ourselves be killed or defeated. The same applies to all or most laws of the traffic. > >Finally, I recognize that you are trying to distinguish two kinds of >motivations for laws. I don't deny that a useful distinction can be >made; I just disagree with your description of it. And I also submit that >the "pro-life" opinion is based on the kind of reason for advocating laws >that you agree is legitimate. ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING: THE "IMPOSING >MORALITY" BOGEYMAN IS A BOGUS ARGUMENT. UNLESS ANYONE CAN COME UP WITH >SOMETHING BETTER, HER OPINION IS COMPLETELY BASELESS. Do all the CAPITALS suggest that you are trying to shout? If it is, remember, people tend to shout the loudest when they have the least grounds for their propositions (presumably to make up for the lack of rational grounds)! Even when some actions are immoral, does that mean that we must passed laws? If someone saw a boy drowning, or someone else being mugged, and decided to do absolutely nothing, I would agree with you that that is absolutely immoral; but are you suggesting that such immoral behavior be outlawed? What would you do next, prosecute everyone who sees famine in Africa and remain absolutely untouched? So give us the legitimate reasons, tell us, according to your moral truths, how immoral is abortion, is it worth a penalty of hanging? or 10 years hard labor, good behavior? or parading in Main Street with a label "murderer of unborn child"?, or is it only worth some fraction of your tax money? (In the last case, you should argue against public funding, not legality of abortion). By the way, HER should be HIS. kin wong ..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw No thanks for the egg. Save it for your own.