hawk@oliven.UUCP (Rick) (09/19/84)
Gee, Kin. Seems like some things are reasonable to forbid because we find them offensive but others aren't. hmm. Now, before we hear a crusade against the government legislating morality, would someone name a single law that isn't either a: based on morality of some form (drinking ages, rape, . . . ) That is, find a law that isn't an imposition of beliefs. b: an arbitrary standard (drive on right hand side of the road, etc.) That is, imposing the belief that there should be a standard rick -- [hplabs|zehntel|fortune|ios|tolerant|allegra|tymix]!oliveb!oliven!hawk
kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery) (09/21/84)
>Now, before we hear a crusade against the government legislating morality, >would someone name a single law that isn't either > > a: based on morality of some form (drinking ages, rape, . . . ) > That is, find a law that isn't an imposition of beliefs. Drinking age restriction is unethical, because it imposes a restriction on one segment of the population whose members do not all necessarily deserve it, and who will not necessarily harm someone while drinking. (Also, it does nothing about people above the minimum age who drink irresponsibly.) Laws against rape may be considered an attempt to enforce the notion of the inviolateness of one's property, in this case one's body. This is NOT an imposition of morality, as the law properly acts against the person (the rapist) who initiates the use of force against another. To be an imposition of belief, the law would have to act against someone who was properly innocent, someone who has not harmed or defrauded another. Such laws are said by some to define "victimless crimes". Some examples are the Texas anti-"sodomy" law, laws against prostitution, laws against jaywalking, laws against suicide, etc. The key common element here is that the person against whom legislative and police force is directed has not violated the property of anyone else. He/she merely does not live up to the standard which someone else wishes to impose. > b: an arbitrary standard (drive on right hand side of the road, etc.) > That is, imposing the belief that there should be a standard > >rick What does the consistent use (for your own protection and ease of travel) of an arbitrary standard have to do with imposing morality? The price of not following a standard way to drive is that you are likely to harm someone else. The choice which is based on morality here is to avoid harming others. The standard is only an implementation mechanism, and has nothing to do with morality per se. (Is the decision of whether to talk TCP/IP or Decnet a moral one? :-)) -- "Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs" Ken Montgomery ...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm [Usenet, when working] kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA [for Arpanauts only]
kin@laidbak.UUCP (Kin Wong) (09/25/84)
>Gee, Kin. Seems like some things are reasonable to forbid because we find them >offensive but others aren't. hmm. > >Now, before we hear a crusade against the government legislating morality, would >someone name a single law that isn't either > > a: based on morality of some form (drinking ages, rape, . . . ) > That is, find a law that isn't an imposition of beliefs. > > b: an arbitrary standard (drive on right hand side of the road, etc.) > That is, imposing the belief that there should be a standard > Gee, Rick. What about laws that give you the freedom of expression and freedom of worship? In what way are you imposed by having the freedom to choose your own religion? Compare law A: "Everyone has the freedom of worship" and law B:"Everyone must follow the teachings of (your favorite prohpet)", which one is doing the imposing? In what way are you "imposed" by law A? Secondly, in cases where there is a consensus, then you can't really say it is an imposition, for you can't impose morals on people who already accept them (e.g. you can't impose Christian beliefs (whatever they are )on christians, any more than you can impose atheistic beliefs(whatever they are) on atheists) Thirdly, do you consider rules set up to maintain some system "moral imposition"?(e.g driving rules)? In what way are you morally imposed when you play any game that have any rules? can you have a system or even a game without rules? Finally, even if some (or many) laws are passed on moral grounds, that does not mean we can passed some laws just because some people can find moral grounds for them. Some people find the eating of pork or beef morally offensive, others, the use of contraceptives, and still others, the non-belief in God; are you suggesting that based on moral grounds we should passed laws prohibiting the eating of some pork, beef, etc? kin wong (..ihnp4!iwlc8!klw)