| T.R | Title | User | Personal
Name | Date | Lines |
|---|
| 330.2 | Good questions, liesl, somewhat unsavory reply | SKYLRK::OLSON | green chile crusader! | Thu Dec 08 1988 02:56 | 59 |
| "...just how much we can legislate morality..."
The crux. Define morality. I observe that morality is an individual
choice; individuals draw their moral precepts (conduct their lives)
according to myriad bizarre influences; some rooted in churches,
some in philosophies, belief systems, call them what you will.
When our society, in defining individualism as the highest virtue,
accepted tolerance as a necessary component thereof, Pandora's Box
was opened. Persecution still occurs when behavior exceeds norms
by too great a distance, but in general the maxim is that behavior
harmful to none is tolerated, and behavior harmful only to the self
is tolerated unto the point of self-destruction.
them's the general observations I start from. now...
> The dilemma is this, is it wrong to allow an activity because
> some very small subset of humanity will misuse this freedom?
That part is pretty clear, the answer is yup, its wrong to disallow
such activities merely because abusers exist. We can be pragmatic
and say that prohibition does more damage than tolerance (and cite
prohibition with a capital "P" for the example); we can be philosophic
and observe (as per Madison in Federalist No. 51):
"It is of great interest in a republic...to guard one part of the
society against the injustice of the other part. Different interests
necessarily exist...If a majority be united by a common interest,
the rights of the minority will be insecure. ...providing against
this evil...[:] ..whilst all authority...will be derived from and
dependent on the society, the society itself will be broken into
so many parts, interests and classes of citizens, that the rights
of individuals, or of the minority, will be in little danger from
interested combinations of the majority. In a free government the
security for civil rights must be the same as that for religious
rights. It consists in the one case in the multiplicity of interests,
and in the other in the multiplicity of sects." *
Madison went so far as to associate civil tolerance for distasteful
behavior with the same protected position (philosophically) as
religions enjoy, in the eye of the state. So liesl, I have to answer
you that we cannot legislate morality with any pure philosophic
justification either.
Having disposed of the venues of pragmatics and philosophical
approaches, what remains? The fact that abusers are distasteful
and offend our own appreciation for the moral niceties of our
positions...Flint (Flynt?) being the perfect example. I have to
accept the abusers however. Nothing yet gives me the right to impose
my standards upon them (with oppressive legislation). If I buy
into the philosophic thought that defined the constitution (and
I do), I have to accept the consequences.
DougO
*[in extracting from long winded philosophers one must necessarily
abridge the points. If anyone believes I've distorted by the omissions
in the above (marked by ellipses...) I'm open to other viewpoints.
I've tried to be faithful to Madison's intent while dropping the
verbage irrelevent to this discussion.]
|
| 330.3 | Why does multiple use constitute abuse? | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Thu Dec 08 1988 09:40 | 32 |
| re: .1
I honestly don't see the conflict here. If abortions are
legal, then the only contraining factor on when and how they
should be used ought to be left in the hands of the women
that use it. If some have no moral problem with using
abortion as birth control, then why should I (or anyone else)
have any say in the matter?
Certainly one could point to the health risks involved
and caution the woman in question about them. But to set
some arbitrary limit on the number of abortions anyone can
have seems to me to be as absurd as banning them in the first
place, and will create exactly the same problems (albeit at some
lesser scale). If they want a third or fifth or twentieth
abortion, then they will have it, one way or another.
If the argument is that abortions are only acceptable in
cases of 'emergency', then again I must say I don't buy it.
Who can decide what constitutes and emergency except the one
who is in the emergency? How can you state with any degree
of certainty that the first abortion is acceptable, and all
subsequent abortions constitute abuse? It makes no sense
at all, and seems to me to be a veiled damnation of abortions
in the first place.
If abortion is accepted, then it is accepted and multiple
use does not constitute abuse. If it is not accepted, then
any single use constitutes abuse. I really can't see the
logic in allowing one abortion but disallowing a second.
- Greg
|
| 330.4 | | 25691::STHILAIRE | a simple twist of fate | Thu Dec 08 1988 12:07 | 21 |
| I think there will always be people who manage to completely botch
up their lives no matter what laws exist. The laws should be made
for the good of the majority regardless of how the minority misuses
them. I think that having abortion be legal *is* for the good of
the majority of women.
As far as having our taxes go to help this woman and her kids, I'd
rather have my taxes go to help them than to have them starve to
death in a gutter somewhere. I think we have to care about what
happens to *all* other people, not just the other people who live
according to our own morals.
I can't really *understand* why this paricular woman would allow
herself to get pregnant 7 times! I'm older than her and I've only
gotten pregnant once. But, so what? We're two different people?
I don't know all the events and feelings that have shaped her life.
It isn't for me to judge. There are no doubt things I've done
that she wouldn't be able to understand either.
Lorna
|
| 330.5 | Let them follow their conscience | VINO::EVANS | The Few. The Proud. The Fourteens. | Thu Dec 08 1988 12:24 | 24 |
| I agree with .0 - I may not "approve" (and who am *I* to approve
or disapprove, you may well ask) of someone using abortion as birth
control, but I believe at some point, issues are between people
and their karma. (Or whatever you choose to call it.)
Society can make rules to protect the members of the society. That
is not the same as legislating morality. You can't legislate morality,
nor can you impress your morality on another. When someone becomes
a member of society, they can be protected by those rules.
This is why, BTW, I don't see capital punishment as "teaching
killers that killing is wrong". I see it as a way to remove individuals
from the society. (Induviduals who threaten the members of the
society.) I am not saying whether I approve of it or not, just how
I see it vis-a-vis the "rules" of society.
Before becoming a member of society, an entity is controlled by
something else, and that something else makes the rules for that
entity. What the rules are and how they work are between the
*controlling* entity and its conscience. The society cannot control
"conscience" (or whatever you choose to call it).
--DE
|
| 330.7 | Tolerance is necessary in a democracy. | LDYBUG::PARE | What a long, strange trip its been | Thu Dec 08 1988 13:15 | 55 |
| Note 330.1
NOVA::M_DAVIS
Interesting outlook Marge. Point well taken.
> I think a lot of concerns regarding the behavior of individuals
> other than oneself arise from the fact that we taxpayers all end
> up paying for the indiscretions of irresponsible individuals.
Remember that we, as taxpayers, subsidize religious attitudes in the form
of tax exemptions also. Should religious attitudes adapt to my philosophies
because I am expected to provide tax exempt services for them? Is the
majority once more subsidizing the minority in this different way?
> get angry with poor drivers as much for the fact that they're driving
> up my insurance rates as for the fact that they are a menace on
> the road.
Automobile insurance is not required New Hampshire, perhaps it should not
be required here. Then those who are paying for protection will receive it
and those who are not will not receive it. Careless drivers will not be
able to afford to continue in such carelessness.
> I get angry with women who use their feminine wiles on
> their male bosses because it devalues the work I do.
I don't believe that anyone can devalue the work that an individual does.
Using "feminine wiles" is a separate issue (but I understand how you
feel).
> I get angry when I flip over a record album and see displayed there
> dissolute behavior because it drags down the median worth of all human
> beings.
Ah, but once again, this is a judgement call Marge. Behavior that one
person considers to be dissolute or lacking in moral restraint, may be
perfectly acceptable to someone else. In Iran dissolute behavior
for a woman can range from appearing in public unveiled to appearing
in public unchaperoned. Most Americans would not view such behavior
as anything but normal.
As much as I respect your opinions (and I do), I do not necessarily agree
with all of them. I would not be willing to alter my behavior to
adhere to anyone else's philosophical beliefs but my own. I think
most people feel that way.
I too care about my moral environment. And we all have a right to determine
what that environment shall be.
Mary
|
| 330.10 | I'll take my chances... | CLT::BROWN | upcountry frolics | Thu Dec 08 1988 17:23 | 31 |
|
Re: .0
I feel that one of the inherent dangers in legislating morality is the
potential for abuse and discriminatory enforcement. It's so difficult
to pin down morality in writing - it's all in relation to abstract
ideas of right and wrong. And it's so easy to manipulate people's
frustration and fear on moral issues. Look at some of the absurd
proposals surfacing around the subject of AIDS. It's not a moral
issue, it's a public health issue! But legislators are using people's
beliefs to pervert the intent of legislation.
When morality is legislated, those groups who either have differing
moral opinions or less power than the legislating body tend to lose.
Laws concerning prostitution have traditionally been subject to
selective enforcement based on class, race, and gender.
Can an action be shown to cause direct threat or harm to another
person (and I use person in the current legal sense), such as
illegal disposal of toxic waste, yelling fire in a crowded theatre,
or shooting someone? Legislate against the act. But where imminent
threat or harm can only be speculated upon, or where there is a
conflict in beliefs, leave it alone.
Legislation of morality leaves the door open to invasion of privacy
and the suppression of minority groups or opinions. I'll take my
chances with "moral decay" (a running theme since Og added naughty
bits to his cave painting of an antelope) if I can be assured of the
continuation of basic freedoms.
Ron
|
| 330.11 | harm | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Thu Dec 08 1988 18:20 | 30 |
| re .8:
>Some people worry about clean streams while others worry about visual
>assaults on their sensibilities on public thoroughfares and in public
>transportation.
>
>We're spending (too little) money to clean up the former; I wonder what
>we're doing to clean up the latter? So the question comes back,
>"What's dirty?" If I look in a stream and see fish bobbing belly up,
>then the stream is too dirty; there's no question. If I look at
>teenagers who are singing the songs and living out the fantasies of
>"Blood and Roses", songs that they've learned on FCC-regulated
>stations, then what is my recourse?
Pollution is not a crime because it is ugly, but because it is
physically harmful.
Songs and magazines are not physically harmful, no matter how
disgusting one may think they are.
If some one decides to "live the fantasy" (I assume you mean "act
out") of violent behavior advocated by songs or magazines, then
it is the _act_ that is illegal, not the advocation of it.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 330.13 | Not trying to argue with you -- just questioning... | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Dec 09 1988 09:53 | 46 |
| RE: .1
> I think a lot of concerns regarding the behavior of individuals
> other than oneself arise from the fact that we taxpayers all end
> up paying for the indiscretions of irresponsible individuals.
Would you, perhaps, be more accepting of the behavior of others
if they paid for their own indiscretions (either directly or
by paying more taxes than the average person?) Is it really
a question of having to pay for it (or having to live in the
same world where these indiscretions are taking place?)
> I get angry with poor drivers as much for the fact that they're
> driving up my insurance rates as for the fact that they are a
> menace on the road.
Ok. You have the right to set your own priorities.
> I get angry with women who use their feminine wiles on
> their male bosses because it devalues the work I do.
How does their behavior devalue the work that *you* do as an
individual? Is it because you feel sensitized to the precarious
position that minority workers are in (or do you think that
any one man can devalue the work of ALL other men, too?)
I'm not trying to challenge you here, Marge. I'm just trying
to understand the concept.
> I get angry when I flip over a record album and see displayed
> there dissolute behavior because it drags down the median worth
> of all human beings.
How does it do that (and in whose EYES is the median worth of
all human beings dragged down?) In your eyes? Is that particular
system of valuing the entire human race something that the rest
of us should be concerned about?
I'm having a really difficult time understanding how the back
of an album cover can make the whole human race worth less.
> I care about my moral environment. I have a right to care.
Yes, you have a right to care. However, if we all measure the
moral environment differently, then who is to say that your
particular moral standard is better than, say, anyone else's?
|
| 330.15 | | NEXUS::CONLON | | Fri Dec 09 1988 11:13 | 81 |
| RE: .14
Well, Marge, I guess that there are a number of ways that one
can look at the changes that are taking place in the moral
environment (and I do agree that we are in the process of change.)
I can remember (as a small child) when it was considered just
FINE to throw 'car garbage' out of the window while driving
on a highway where there were no houses or businesses nearby.
I mean, it was so common -- nearly everyone seemed to be doing
it.
When I saw the messages about littering on TV, I remember thinking
how ridiculous it was to throw garbage on the ground (and wondered
why it took anti-litter campaigns to bring that realization
to the public consciousness.) We all should have KNOWN that
throwing garbage on the ground was going to make the land look
trashey (and that it wouldn't just sort of 'dissolve' by itself
overnight.)
In the past 20 years, our public consciousness has been raised
about SO many other things -- not the least of which has been
Civil Rights and Women's Rights. We're still screwing up the
environment and endangering species, granted, but there are groups
trying like crazy to slow that process down (and there are more
people every day who are aware and CARE DEEPLY about such things.)
When I was a teenager in the late 60's, the one thing that
really bothered me about the way I perceived society was that
people seemed so hung-up on the way they appeared to others.
If a daughter got pregnant out of wedlock and "had to" get
married, the main concern seemed to be, "What will the neighbors
say?" It seemed to me that appearances counted for almost
everything, and there was almost no such thing as a "second
chance." Once you made a mistake, you were branded for life.
That doesn't happen as much now. Most people seem more tolerant
of other people's personal lives and mistakes (and 'appearances'
aren't as threatening as they used to be.)
I can remember hearing that there was no way we would ever have
a divorced President (because divorce was considered an insur-
mountable liability in politics.) Ronald Reagan was divorced,
and no one seemed to care by the time he was elected.
Sure, album covers and movies have more sex & violence than
people from the 40's and 50's ever would have BELIEVED our
culture would permit! But sex and violence isn't new. Our
culture has had some incredibly violent eras (not the least
of which occurred in the 1920's and 1930's, around the time
of Prohibition.)
It may seem as if morals have gone down the tubes in the last
20 years or so, but to my way of thinking, the only thing that
has really changed is that people are more honest about it
now. There was sex/violence/substance_abuse/etc. all along
-- we've just become more open about the existence of such
things now.
I don't happen to believe that the 'old moral values' were
better. I think that the idealism about the past is mostly
a fantasy.
At any rate, we couldn't recapture the past even if we wanted
to (although there seems to be a movement afoot from people
who believe we can do exactly that.)
If the past were as ideal as some people have convinced themselves
that it was, I could understand the desire to go back to it.
In my opinion, the movement towards 'old values' is just the
response to a sort of 'future shock' about all the things that
have happened in the past 20 years.
It's fine for you to care about our moral environment, Marge,
as do many of us (in our own ways.) I just think that there
is more than one way to see the changes that have happened,
so some folks are bound to resist the notion that we should
be concerned about some of the things that you seem to be
concerned about.
It's just a matter of perspective, I guess.
|
| 330.17 | | TFH::MARSHALL | hunting the snark | Fri Dec 09 1988 14:14 | 14 |
| re .12:
> re .11:
> What is more important, physically harmful or emotionally harmful?
It is not a question of which is more important but which of them
is it proper for government to legislate.
/
( ___
) ///
/
|
| 330.18 | gray,gray it's all gray | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Fri Dec 09 1988 18:51 | 16 |
|
Steve's remarks are what I was getting at. It seems to me that
the new conservatives are out to legislate my life away on any
issue they disagree with me on. (what a sentence!)
To me the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that
the liberal says "I don't agree with you but as long as you don't
force me to do what you want it's OK". The conservative (here
meaning the moral majority and new right) say "If you don't agree
with me I'll have you arrested because if I don't like it, it
must be wrong".
I will defend the right of a woman to have 5 abortions even
though I don't agree with her methods just as I must defend
"Hustler" magazine. To do otherwise begins the erosion of my
rights. liesl
|
| 330.19 | | FACVAX::BOYAJIAN | Millrat in training | Fri Dec 09 1988 19:20 | 42 |
| � > I get angry with women who use their feminine wiles on
> their male bosses because it devalues the work I do.
How does their behavior devalue the work that *you* do as an
individual? �
Well, I can't speak for Marge, but I'd agree with her that it does
devalue the work she does, though only in an indirect sense. The
value of her work is still the same, but it can be obscured by a
false set of expectations or biases.
It's much like a discussion I had with my nephew a couple of weeks
ago. We happened to catch the infamous Sam Kinnison "Wild Thing"
video, and Eric (my nephew) started talking about how he couldn't
understand why women thought it was sexist. I explained to him that
the problem with the video (and most music videos) is that it
presented and reinforced an image of women in general that paints
them as nothing but sex objects. One can say that Jessica Hahn in
that video devalues only herself, but it can also be said that she
devalues all women by reinforcing the negative image.
Then Eric used that as a springboard to talk about what he thought
was a hypocrisy in women that it was okay for women to "assess"
men as sex objects but not vice versa. So, I explained the differences
were (1) that men can be seen as sex objects, but not *only* and
*always* seen as such, whereas women often *are* seen *only* and
*always* as such, and (2) -- a corollary to (1) -- that men, unlike
women, don't have to worry whether or not, for example, they're going
to get a job or a raise depending on how cute their buns are.
I think he got the idea.
re:.15
� It may seem as if morals have gone down the tubes in the last
20 years or so, but to my way of thinking, the only thing that
has really changed is that people are more honest about it now. �
Yeah. It's like the old saw: "Do you remember the Good Old Days
when air was clean and sex was dirty?"
--- jerry
|
| 330.20 | An old conservative speaks | HSSWS1::GREG | Malice Aforethought | Fri Dec 09 1988 23:30 | 36 |
| re: .18 (Liesl)
> Steve's remarks are what I was getting at. It seems to me that
> the new conservatives are out to legislate my life away on any
> issue they disagree with me on. (what a sentence!)
I wonder if that makes me an 'old conservative' at
the ripe old age of 28. Any who know me know that I
preech the gospel of freedom of choice, which is one of
the reasons I'm a conservative. I also see a trend toward
trading freedom for security, and I fight against it.
> To me the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that
> the liberal says "I don't agree with you but as long as you don't
> force me to do what you want it's OK". The conservative (here
> meaning the moral majority and new right) say "If you don't agree
> with me I'll have you arrested because if I don't like it, it
> must be wrong".
I have not noticed the tendency for liberals to
listen and allow any more than you have noted such a
tendency among conservatives. From where I sit, they
are both using similar tactics, both trying to wrest
the freedom from the people and invest it in the
bureaucracy... the only difference is in which
freedoms they want.
> I will defend the right of a woman to have 5 abortions even
> though I don't agree with her methods just as I must defend
> "Hustler" magazine. To do otherwise begins the erosion of my
> rights.
I defend these things too. What I don't defend are
liberal spending policies.
- Greg
|
| 330.22 | though I'm not real clear on what they are | NOETIC::KOLBE | The dilettante debutante | Mon Dec 12 1988 14:53 | 3 |
|
To Greg and Mike, it's begining to look like we're all leaning
towards being libertarians! liesl
|
| 330.23 | This is not - by Law | ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI | This is the story so far! | Tue Dec 13 1988 08:08 | 16 |
|
The legislation of morality is absurd, because this "consensus
reality rule set" can go into specifics about showing feelings,
"Showing feelings of an almost Human nature" as a lyric from one
popular album goes. Surely one can recognise that showing feelings
was considered generally "immoral" in the Old World traditions -
These emotions are appropriate; 1, 2, 3,...these arent; 1, 2, 3,...
And if one can recognise that, then one can conclude that at least
*some* part of morality is an attempt to deny the reality that Human
nature actually presents. Therefore, if morality defines our
expectations to be considered *Human*, through a set of explicit
"criteria",...and this is based on the "current consensus reality's"
denial of what actually is...and you turn that into law...
Joe Jas
|
| 330.24 | The Libertarian motto...be prepared | PRYDE::ERVIN | Roots & Wings... | Tue Dec 13 1988 14:17 | 10 |
| re: .22
Liesl,
Three cheers for libertarianism...that's why I always carry my caffeine
pills in case someone tries to force decaffeinated coffee or soda
on me!
Laura
|