|
July 24, 2010
endless arguments about the "etc."
There has been a long, drawn out argument in a series of comments to some recent posts, and it's unfortunate for me, because I'm not an especially comment-oriented person. But OTOH, I don't want people to think that my not replying to comments means anything. Silence does not indicate agreement or disagreement; often it means that I didn't read the comments. As I have said many times, it is not my purpose to run a debating society; I write these posts to share what I think, and then as the spirit moves me, I'll move on to another post. Comments are always appreciated, and (with the exception of obvious spam comments that get through -- and I often miss those!) I never censor them or ban people. But just because I appreciate, allow, and would never censor comments, that does not mean that I have to answer them. I don't even have to read them. If I spent my time answering every point made in every comment, the emphasis of the blog would change, and the distractions would cause me to lose my flow. But clearly, some commenters are annoyed with me for ignoring their concerns about morality, especially in the context of law, and especially in the context of consensual homosexuality. The latter is clearly viewed by some to be of paramount importance. Why it matters so much more than adultery or masturbation I do not know. Nor can I understand the argument that tolerance of consensual homosexuality leads to the abandonment of morality. Perhaps that is because I do not consider consensual homosexual conduct to be immoral (at least no more immoral than consensual heterosexual conduct). Like most people, I think there should be laws about some things, and not others. Not all of the things I think there should be laws about involve morality, although some do. In terms of jurisprudence, that distinction is to be found in malum in se versus malum prohibitum. Some things are inherently bad, and are nearly always considered so by nearly all people in nearly all places and cultures; others vary. The devil lies in the details. It is inherently wrong to steal, but it is not inherently wrong to sell widgets from the home or burn leaves in the yard. I am not saying that I only support malum in se law, but I do think we shouldn't be kidding ourselves into pretending that malum prohibitum laws (such as laws relating to alcohol, drugs, the environment, pornography, etc.) are the same as malum in se. (See my many posts about manufactured morality.) This distinction came up in an earlier comment, and my reply to it: I want an agreed upon set of principles to be taught regarding what is acceptable (respect for others) and is NOT acceptable (stealing, rape, murder, assault,etc.)Yes, and there are endless arguments about the "etc." As I stand accused of being inconsistent and illogical, and of ignoring points made in comments, I thought the general topic of morality merited a post. So what is morality? There certainly is no universal agreement on it, much less how far it should go in being the basis of law. As a libertarian, I pretty much believe that the criminal police power of the state (especially the power to kill or imprison citizens) should be limited to cases of force or fraud committed by one person against another. (But even that simple rule is subject to qualifications depending on consent; if two men agree to fight each other, they have consented to the use of force. Similarly, I am sure there are some who consider homosexuality to be a consensual form of mutual harm, and therefore wrong. So is boxing wrong too?) I think Thomas Jefferson put it quite well with his "pick my pocket or break my leg" standard. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.While Jefferson was talking about tolerance for religious differences, I agree with his general view of the legitimate powers of government. This is not to say that Jefferson's views are dispositive or controlling on all moral questions. No one's are. Views of morality vary from person to person and culture to culture, and that is not moral relativism, but a simple observation. My view of morality obviously does not please everyone, and how could it? For starters, I don't believe God is a book, and I think it is a mistake to declare that religious texts should be controlling on moral issues. Many people disagree with that, and insist that religion should be controlling. I tend more towards a common-sense view of morality, based on mutual respect for my fellow human beings, best summarized by what we call the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This reflects (but also predates) an important saying attributed to Jesus: Love they neighbor as thyself. But I don't think that recognizing its validity requires either a belief that Jesus Christ said it, or that Jesus Christ is the son of God (as well as God as well as the Holy Ghost). Reasonable minds can differ. Of course, at the other extreme are people like Aleister Crowley, who declared, simply "Do what thou wilt is the whole of the law." A philosophy I think is inherently wrong because it does not countenance any duty to refrain from harming one's fellow human beings. And if other people are free to harm me, if they are free to use force to impose their will on me and tell me what to do, then there is really no freedom at all, but simply the law of the jungle, which is the law of raw nature. Like what I see in my fish tanks; the bigger fish kill and eat the smaller fish, which in turn kill and eat the smaller fish. That is hardly a model for the type of human society in which I would like to live -- which is one based on mutual respect and tolerance, and the Golden Rule. This means minimal government, because the bigger government gets, the more it leads to precisely the type of tyranny I see in the fish tank. I realize that the "leave people alone" (or "leave people alone unless they harm you") approach to morality does not settle all questions of morality, nor will it please everyone. There is, to be sure, plenty of room for disagreement and inconsistency. Again, I'd say the Devil is in the details, except I already said it and I don't want to be accused of believing in the Devil. Etc. MORE: I should add that I think the argument that morality can come only from God is problematic for two admittedly practical reasons: 1. It immediately raises the questions of whose god (or which god) is authoritative as to morality, and according to whose interpretation?I realize that Locke maintained that atheists are inherently immoral and that atheism should thus never be tolerated. But Locke was not the author of our Constitution, and I would submit that his view on this matter is incompatible with our constitutional tradition, as well as wildly impractical in the modern age. posted by Eric on 07.24.10 at 11:48 AM
Comments
Oh, that harm. The degree of risk to others considered tolerable has become vanishingly small. All that's required to prohibit anything is a nationwide hysterical hissy fit by the intelligentsia, and soon it is "common sense" and a "done deal." Brett · July 24, 2010 01:53 PM Crowley I think made a couple of good points with his statement. You can't do anything without harming someone. i.e. Henry Ford was bad for buggy whip makers. Second - it was not just doing your will. It was also learning from your experiences. It may be your will to stick your hand unprotected into a fire. Good or bad? Well if you were pulling some one out of the fire - good. If it was just to see what would happen - learn from it. notaclue, I applaud and support your position. However, many feel that toleration = support. There in lies the rub (you will pardon the expression). M. Simon · July 24, 2010 02:58 PM notaclue:
I'll go for that. The government should not force any religion to recognize or affirm gay marriages. In fact there is a move in California to pass a law that states just that, and it is being pushed by gays who believe in complete separation of church & state. Some libertarians have suggested that government get out of the marriage business altogether. I don't think this will happen, but a compromise would be for the state to only issue civil unions, and leave traditional marriages to religious institutions. That way the pesky word, marriage, couldn't be used to describe what was for centuries a religious event, and for Catholics, a sacrament. Even though I am gay, and had a legal gay marriage in California two years ago, I can understand people who have a traditional view of morality.
Frank · July 24, 2010 09:15 PM added clarification for above post: Frank · July 24, 2010 09:23 PM Let me add that Crowley was quite the trickster. Read one way his philosophy condones evil. Read another way he condemns it. Which is why I find him such an interesting character. I have found that those with a deep interest in Crowley are a severely bifructed group. 1. Some of the stupidest people I have ever met. For them everything is surface. 2. Some of the smartest most moral loving people I have ever met. One was this lesbian..... M. Simon · July 24, 2010 09:55 PM Force or fraud which do harm to another specific person are not the same thing as each and every theoretical form of harm. I cannot walk down the street without doing harm to insects and microorganisms which are part of the ecosystem, and by breathing my carbon footprint does theoretical harm to Gaia! I think using the state to go after people who commit "self harm" -- whether in the form of abusing their bodies by eating the wrong foods, consuming the wrong substances, engaging in risky activities, not seeing the doctor for prevention, etc. -- leads to an all-encompassing state with no end in sight. Too often, the left and the right disagree only on which "harms" they plan to use state power to eliminate, instead of addressing the issue of whether the state should be in the business of preventing self harm. Eric Scheie · July 25, 2010 10:49 PM And Crowley, deviant that he was, could only brutalize a beautiful law of much older origin, (wiccan or keltic or druidic?). A lot like the Jefferson quote: See, that first stanza, it changes it somewhat... Bill Johnson · July 27, 2010 11:44 AM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
July 2010
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
July 2010
June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
A burka ban would suck more than the burka
Fusion - A New Hope? How To Get Rid Of Racism Swapping Where's my Shindley Sherhan Show? Promoting a health hazard more deadly than third hand smoke! Al Gore's Hockey Stick Suffer The Little Children Moral priorities from a distant mirror endless arguments about the "etc."
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Eric, I'm a tip-of-the-right-wing conservative Christian, and you might be surprised how many of us believe in tolerating homosexual behavior among consenting adults, just as we reluctantly tolerate heterosexual fornication and serial divorce. Here's what we ask in return:
Many of us are willing to tolerate homosexual behavior as long as no one tries to make us affirm it.