On Tue, 2014-09-09 at 10:22 +0530, Mahesh Murthy wrote: > I would imagine you can covet whatever you like. Its your right to > have any > desire. Freedom of thought. > > Acting on that covetousness is a compact between you and the coveted > person, at the very least. But freedom of thought doesn't naturally > turn > into freedom of deed. Sometimes, with consenting adults, it can. > Sometimes, > based on non-moral reasons, it doesn't.
The point is, if there is an action that one can take that is not forbidden by law, is it your right to take that action. You may or may not choose to exercise your right, but it is a right nevertheless. If it is not your right, why not? Assuming it is a right, and excluding the choice of not exercising one's right what non-moral reasons could might be there for not exercising one's right? If it is the threat of being punished under some pretext or other - that threat then becomes a restriction of your right. Morality is one type of restriction of rights. Laws are another type of restriction of rights. Morality is a "pre-emptive" restriction. Morality tells you that something should not be done before you do it. Laws are post facto restrictions. They tell you, "If you do something that should not be done, you will be punished" Morality acts as a first layer of protection against undesirable actions. Laws are a second layer. You can remove morality and say that morality is redundant as long as good laws are implemented. But here's the rub. I think you and Udhay both pointed out that there is no universal morality. That is because different societies have differing ideas of morality. If one has to do away with morality and replace it with laws, it means that given two societies with two differing ideas of morality, the laws that replace morality in each society have to be different, to reflect the different moral requirements of two different societies. That also means that there cannot be universal laws. shiv
