esk@wucs.UUCP (11/25/84)
From: kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) Subject: abortion and morals > ... 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. 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? 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- ality, because -- and this is my third point -- morality is INTERpersonal; it is concerned with rights and justice and how people treat others. 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. ______ |\ "... and that's just as plain as | | | the egg on your face!" | | | o| o| o| --The THIRD side, Paul V Torek, ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!pvt1047 Please send any mail directly to this address, not the sender's. Thanks.