brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (11/30/84)
An article from Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047:
X From: kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) Subject: abortion and morals
X > ... some have suggested that every law is "imposition of morals", and
X > that even in traffic rules, for example, we have laws because of the
X > "belief that there should be a system rather than no system",i.e. that
X > it comes from our "beliefs" that having a system is better than no system
X > (and presumably better == more moral). I object, ... I dont support
X > traffic laws because I think they are "moral", but because I dont want
X > to be in a state where I run a high risk of getting run down.
X
X First of all, the question is not so much why you support them as why
X the majority supports them. This raises the second point, namely, is
X your motivation purely self-interested as you seem to make it out to be?
You seem to misinterpret Kin. He is using himself as an example of what
people want (to not get run over). He is not claiming that he wants
laws to apply only to him, or is concerned with the application of laws
to himself.
X If there were a law that allowed *other* people to be run down but not
X you, would you support it?
That is, would you be a dictator?
(Such a law would only come into being
if you had the power to enact it.
[assuming laws don't exist randomly,
but get made by those who hold the power,
those may be one ruler, or everyone in democracy, or inbetween])
There are two issues here in the quoted articles (at least 2...):
What should laws be based on?
"Morals" (what are they), more practical measures, or what?
and
Who should decide laws?
Should one decide only for oneself, or decide things for others
(without their permission or agreeing vote)?
Don't get the issues confused.
X Even if you would, I submit that most people
X don't think that way; most people will support laws for the sake of pro-
X tecting others as well as themselves.
X THEREFORE the laws are imposed mor-
X ality, because -- and this is my third point -- morality is INTERpersonal;
Imposed, yes. Morality, not necessarily.
Driving on the same side as everyone else certainly helps interpersonal
relations, but is it morals? (Are all those British types who drive
on the other side of the road immoral?)
Obviously, there is something MORE than interpersonal relationships.
People who talk about "imposing morality" often discuss victimless crimes.
Consuming substances away from the public is not interpersonal.
Activities between consenting adults in private involves relationships
with no >other< persons. (Laws and morality don't have to deal with the
relationship between the two adults, since they are consenting.)
Some people think the above examples are immoral.
There is something in morality which has nothing to do with
(direct, anyway) interpersonal relationships, at least for some.
Morality is something other (or at least more than) interpersonal
relationships. What, though, is a hard question to answer,
both in the general definition and specific choices to follow.
(so shall we take stabs at it?)
X ...
X Finally, I recognize that you are trying to distinguish two kinds of
X motivations for laws. I don't deny that a useful distinction can be
X made; I just disagree with your description of it. And I also submit that
X the "pro-life" opinion is based on the kind of reason for advocating laws
X that you agree is legitimate.
Pro-lifers don't want themselves to get run over? Or aborted, rather?
It is impossible, by definition.
If you mean something else, try to explain yourself.
X ONCE MORE, WITH FEELING: THE "IMPOSING
X MORALITY" BOGEYMAN IS A BOGUS ARGUMENT.
X ...
X Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047
Wrong.
Imposing morality is forcing others to obey certain moral standards
either when they believe other morals, or when morals are inapplicable.
Abortion does not involve interpersonal relationships.
(a fetus is not a person. It is a human being, which is different.)
So it does not involve morals, by your definition.
Any attempt to make laws controlling abortion is therefore
imposing morality. That is, trying to put morality where it
does not apply.
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^