In a thread on law and morality/religion, Rick responded:
<<....not really the legal limitation we would expect it to be. For
example, the simple fact that a religion believes in the human sacrifice
of virgin maidens (talk about grounds for a "Just say YES!" program . . .)
doesn't mean we need to legalize homicide.
Understood (and a good laugh). That's a good "line in the dirt" for getting
off the blocks here.
<< ... The simplest way I know is to base criminal law (versus civil law,
which
deals with very different issues) on a simple postulate: If an act does
NOT involve direct harm to the person or property of a non-consenting
individual (and children, by definition, can NOT consent to behavior that
may be harmful to them), the State has no concern with that behavior.
Instead of legislating one set of moral values to the exclusion of those
of other religions, the logical solution is not to legislate ANY moral
values, but instead to leave those up to the religions/homes/etc. to teach
on a one-to-one basis through the socialization process.
OK - I am following your reasoning and am comfortable with it up to a grey
area: what to do about defining "individual"? That's the issue, for
instance, with abortion. Although as I understand it, today's US system of
law (as it is) does not reasonably establish a pregnancy of any term as "an
individual" in any consistent manner; i.e., given the manslaughter of a
pregnant woman, charges are generally not 2 counts of manslaughter. Does
your recommended approach clear this issue up at all? Just curious.
<< .... the only way government can meet the needs of all
religions is to favor NONE and eliminate regulation of the public morality
completely from the law. What would that mean? A few examples:
1. Public nudity: Illegal in open public areas (forces non-consenting
individuals to participate by viewing what may be objectionable sights)
but totally legal on designated beaches, parks, etc., or on private
property shielded from view from the public.
2. Prostitution: Legal and taxed with health and safety regulations in
place (loosely on the Nevada or Australian model). Restricted to those
over 18 as both participants and workers, for the protection of children.
3. Gambling: Legal and taxed.
4. Homosexuality: No limitations on private sexual behavior between
adults. Gay marriage recognized for legal purposes (anything else
discriminates against the gay couple vs. the heterosexual one), although
(of course) no church would be required to recognize or perform gay
marriages.
These are fascinating examples...I am not knowledgeable about the social
outcomes in countries that incorporate such approaches to law but am curious
enough to learn. What happens to me when I tumble into ideas about the
attempted legislation of morality (and I'm 98.5% for morality), is that I
begin to wonder if we will ever trust ourselves enough (USA: domestic and
foreign policy)to conduct the sort of social experiment you have in mind? It
seems that, in a world of true freedom/responsibility, we would have only
the handful of laws represented in something like the ten (or so)
commandments of the Judeo-Christian tradition. But "angels on the head of a
pin" spring up with interpretations and applications (i.e., my question
about how to define an individual) that multiply dizzingly, until the law
arrives at what we currently have -- a growing jungle, choking personal
freedom with finer and finer applications of meaning ("it depends on what is
is" sort of legalisms). Which might be good - it could represent a nearing
moment (in geological time) of some critical threshold at which we are
forced to abandon (or rebel against) the insanity of legalism and face our
responsibilites with new awareness. But for real-time and real-social
experiment purposes, I'm not sure I'd prefer current law/politics to the
system you suggest, school policies included.
My only reservations (so far as I've been able to think this through) remain
fixed on the identity question: how to define an indivdual, particularly
with biotech fetching up realities more quickly than we can corral them. It
is absorbing to ponder the implications though I can scarcely imagine them
myself. I am going to study up on this libertarian philosophy stuff, and the
Norwegians. Can I still be a Baptist? Merci mille fois a vos réponses,
Beverly
