brianp@shark.UUCP (Brian Peterson) (09/21/84)
W Gee, Kin. Seems like some things are reasonable
W to forbid because we find them
W offensive but others aren't. hmm.
Maybe "offensive" is therefore NOT a good basis for deciding what to permit.
W Now, before we hear a crusade against the government
W legislating morality, would
W someone name a single law that isn't either
W a: based on morality of some form (drinking ages, rape, . . . )
W That is, find a law that isn't an imposition of beliefs.
W b: an arbitrary standard (drive on right hand side of the road, etc.)
W That is, imposing the belief that there should be a standard
W rick
"Morality"? What is a "morality"?
Of COURSE, all laws have to do with "right and wrong" (excepting standards).
The complaint is whose standards of right and wrong are to be used.
The people who "crusade against legislating morality" probably are
opposed to laws that say "don't do it because it is naughty".
Almost everyone (I think) is for laws that say
"don't do it because it harms someone".
There is a difference in those types of laws.
Here is a good test for what "should" be laws (my opinion - my opinion :-)
You can't consider it "wrong",
unless you wouldn't want someone to do it -->TO<-- you.
(i.e. unless it `harms someone')
Instances (dealing with the concept "to someone"):
You cannot consider smoking marijuana/tofacco wrong, unless
someone does it "to" you (fumigating you).
Likewise, aborting embryos would not be considered wrong, since
no one can abort you. (where abortion is defined as
the act of terminating a pregnancy)
(Projecting info is not doing something TO anyone.
A person can choose to ignore information, the matter is under his
control only.
Lying IS wrong, because we depend on correct info to survive.
Incorrect info cannot be corrected simply by freedom to
ignore it, because freedom does not even APPLY in such a situation.
Freedom only applies if the individual has a choice. In the case
of deliberate lying, the recipient of the info does not know that
it is wrong.
Thus, I may stick my tongue out at you, and call you names, but
I may not tell other people (malicious) lies about you,
because they will take it as truth,
and then be more likely to hurt you.
"Naughty" pictures are also "ok".
Taking pictures of someone unwilling, however, is wrong,
(unless they were doing it in public :-)
because that deals with more than just making info available.
(If the subject is under-age, check if their parents' are willing.)
)
Thus, several things which are considered "morally wrong" are not
harm which is done to someone.
No one can "pornogriphate" you.
Any harm done is done by the PEOPLE who discriminate against women.
They have the power to decide whether or not to degrade women.
Are crowbars (or crowbar-makers) bad, because they simplify
breaking and entering? No, it is the burglar, for he is the one who
decided to turn the item to harmful deeds.
Some "naughty" pictures can be used for good or for bad. Any degradation
is the fault of the person doing the actual harmful acts.
(If the info in question was known by the maker to be lies, however,
it would be a different matter.
Any pornography which is "innately" degrading to women
is just an insult to them, but it is not a lie. See above, re info
)
Since abortion does not hurt you, or yours, or society as a whole,
it is not wrong. (Though if someone else wants to abort your
embryo, that is wrong.)
Brian Peterson {ucbvax, ihnp4, } !tektronix!shark!brianp
^ ^