I would of thought that the obvious dividing line would be whether an activity affected another individual or not (of course, a sensible approach is needed even here: can a heavy smoker’s cancer treatment be said to have an effect on others, assuming treatment is paid for by tax?)
In which case, Zagadka’s point about abortion being an issue of taking a life rather than one of religion does make it a muddy example to use.
I tend to agree, but this is not the line that most people would use. If my experience is any guide (and its not BTW) most people don’t even think in terms of a dividing line. They simply think “There aught to be a law” and proceed to describe why the prohibited behavior is bad, or why the prescribed behavior is good.
In the end, as erislover points out, all societies impose limits on behavior. The only question is which portion of society gets to decide which limits to impose. America is a sort of democracy, so if enough people decide that a behavior is to be prohibited, then they have the power to impose that belief on everyone else. Ideally a simple majority can only impose such a belief on others within the context provided by our Constitution. However, if enough people are convinced, for whatever reason, even this is not a barrier.
Of course, a whole other problem arrises when we are confused as to how to interpret the Constitution. Simply allowing a small number of judges to decide works, but it seems to violate some precept of the democratic process (although I admit I am not inclined to argue with many decisions). There are certain advantages to the English system in this regard. With a “living constitution”, they are not limited to interpreting arcane language.
Yes but my point was that I don’t believe abortion is taking a life. And many other people don’t. But we can debate without using specific examples, I feel like this is getting us sidetracked.
Machetero, I don’t understand quite what you’re getting at. I didn’t say to never impose morality. I didn’t say that cockfighting necessarily should be outlawed.
[Quote=Machetero]
And you have admitted that the imposing of one’s morality on other people is fine as long as it is something that you don’t like or that isn’t important to you.,/quote] Um…Where did I say this exactly? My post should have shown that I was pretty unsure what the correct decision is for this. I said it didn’t matter, so the decision wasn’t important enough for **me ** to make, since I wasn’t directly involved… Please see below.
What I said is:
-
Is imposing morality where the"rightness" is under debate correct?
-
Is the morality of cockfighting under debate?
The answer to the first one is still being debated. The answer to the second one I dismissed as not being that imporant, really, as the other things on my list. You continue to claim that it is. Ok, well, if it is that important then perhaps it shouldn’t be outlawed but perhaps regulated.
And Machetero, no, I don’t believe in reincarnation. I’m ex-Hindu, now atheist.
So I guess here’s the next question. Where is the dividing line? When it hurts one person? How exactly? When it hurts society?
Ok, this is a fun time. Going to lunch now. I’ll see you guys when I get back.
But this question can be asked of many other issues as well. Take your principle (“Don’t harm animals for fun”) and try and justify not spaying or nuetering your pet. What about denying people in small apartments the right to own large dogs? Certain animals are social. Surely a case can be made that people should not be allowed to own less than 2 of them.
Well, since you asked, I think the dividing line should be drawn around the initiation of force. If someone initiates force against anyone else, then that person should be subject to force to accomplish restitution or punishment.
Yes, I realize that. I just interjected my comment because some wags are bound to say “No! It’s wrong to impose one’s morality on someone else!” Sorry for not being clear.
Let’s make no mistake. This is very much a self-refuting claim to utter. The moment that someone makes this claim, he is imposing his own moral worldview on everyone else – and thus, has violated the very tenet which he purports to uphold. The statement contradicts itself. It refutes itself.
That pretty much sums it up…
It’s interesting that you said you don’t “believe” abortion is taking a life. How do you know that and how is your “belief” any different from someone’s “belief” that it IS taking a life.
Really?
There are atheists forcing you to get abortions? Passing legislation demanding that you marry someone of the same sex? Barring your church doors and denying you entrance? Imagine. Glad I live in New York, where none of that stuff happens!
How does not believing something constitute as “belief”?
But, who gets to decide which areas are the gray ones? What if I think that abortion, or gay marriage, or cat juggling, or whatever is obviously bad? Or, on the other hand, what if one of the things you think are obviously bad seem okay to me—what if I say “It’s better for everybody if I kill him” or “I didn’t harm her; I just had sex with her”? Who decides which are the “obviously bad” things?
Or is it a matter of which things most of us agree are obviously bad? But then might—or at least numbers—makes right, and denies minorities the right to try to fight the evils of society? What about the Abolitionists, or the Civil Rights movement? (And yes, they were religiously motivated—read some Martin Luther King Jr., or some of the Quaker Abolitionists, for instance.) What about the Germans who resisted Hitler?
I’m replying as the hypothetical Catholic staunch foe of abortion that you posited, for the sake of debate, here: I’m not trying to impose something just because it’s part of my religion! It’s not like I’m trying to force you to go to Confession, or not eat meat on Fridays. This isn’t just a matter of private opinion. Your right to kill someone else shouldn’t depend on whether you, personally, consider them human. I oppose abortion for the same reason I oppose murder, rape, and all sorts of other things: because they are, objectively, wrong.
Back to speaking in my own voice now:
Here’s what think it boils down to. If you really do think something’s wrong, for whatever reasons (religious or moral or pragmatic or whatever kind of reasons they might be), you have a right, if not a duty, to try to stop it, perhaps by seeking to pass laws against it, perhaps by trying to sway public opinion. If you really believe that something is harmful (whether to specific individuals or society in general—and believe me, the people who are strongly against just about any of your example issues really do believe that they are harmful), it’s reasonable to strive to protect society from such harm. And then if somebody else disagrees with you, and thinks what you’re advocating would be bad, they have the right/duty to oppose you.
And you can’t disallow religious or moral reasons for believing that something is bad—who’s to define which reasons are the “religious” ones? “Religion” just means how you see the world, what you believe about what’s real and what really matters. This isn’t something you can separate out and place off limits.
It sounds like I’m coming out against freedom and tolerance here. Actually, I’m inclined to agree with you (the OP) to a large extent. I get ticked off with the Moral Majority types (of whatever religion or lack thereof—but yeah, the conservative Christians are particularly noticeable about it) who try to impose their preferences and prejudices on the rest of society, who think that just because something’s bad it ought to be illegal, and who need to chill out and/or have some humility and/or get their own lives in order before they go sticking their noses in other people’s business! But really, when you get right down to it, aren’t all laws an attempt to force our values, or morality, or beliefs about what’s right and good, on others?
The argument that always scares me as a non-Christian is one that hasn’t been posted yet. Who cares about whether you are gay or want an abortion or whatever, you are going to Hell if you do those and if you are not my religion.
- You will go to Hell if you do not follow my religion.
- No sane person wants to go to Hell.
- If you do not follow my religion you must be insane.
- The State must reform you until you are sane.
- Yea Brother! You are not going to Hell like me.
or: - You will be in prison/burned at the stake/whatever until you die/Go to Heaven/Find your Eternal Reward.
It is all very logical and loving. It’s not about taking away freedoms. We are just trying to get you to Heaven and Sanity. Freedom is my religion.
Yes, when Christians talk about various stuff that sounds like that, it scares me.
What’s the difference between these two statements:
I don’t believe abortion is taking a life
I belive that abortion does not involve taking a life.
That’s a lowball. In fact I am wondering if I’m being whooshed.
The first statement is denying a positive belief, the second is stateing a negative(which can be logically changed into a positive) belief. Sort of like the difference between agnostics and atheists (according to some.)
At the time of Roe v. Wade in 1973, public opinion on abortion in the U.S. was in much less of a gray area. A solid majority thought that medically unnecessary abortions were murder, and should not be permitted. In that sense, it was the Supreme Court that was imposing a morality.
I think it is important to bring up murder in debates like this. I often ask myself the question, Why is murder illegal? A lot of people would probably say it is a moral issue. I like to think, though, that it is illegal solely because it infringes upon the victim’s right to live.
In a lot of cases, it is fair to accuse people of imposing their morals on others, but I think it is unfair in the case of abortion.
Pro-life advocates are trying to secure the rights of fetuses. Pro-choice advocates are trying to secure the rights of women. That’s what makes the abortion debate so unsolvable. Historically, civil rights movements win out over time and become generally accepted. With abortion, both sides are fighting for the rights of a group.
Gay marriage is going to come eventually, and it will be generally accepted eventually. I don’t see abortion ever getting such widespread acceptance.
And this, for me, is the most interesting thing about general debates about these subjects. I used to like to think there is a “natural justice” that causes us to automatically abhor treacherous killing, but it seems to be an intrinsic part of us.
It is little reported nowadays, but the original intent of Dr. Jane Goodall’s work at Gombe (links to a website summarizing Dr. Jane’s work for schoolchildren) was to determine the potential behavior of our evolutionary ancestors.
In 1974, a war lasting four years broke out amongst the chimps. This strongly suggests that occasional periods of approved mass killing has been a part of our heritage since the common human/chimp ancestor (i.e., several million years).
In light of this, do we attempt to remove killing completely from our culture (an effort that could be biologically doomed to failure, making it another faulty imposition of morality) or do we merely attempt to codify its proper time and place within our legal system?
That is a poorly formed statement. The actual proposition being debated is closer to “The state should impose moral rules only when necessary to prevent demonstrable harm to a nonconsenting person”.
That, at least, is noncontradictory, since the state’s adherence to this rule does not in itself cause harm to nonconsenting persons. (Being annoyed does not count as “harm”.)
The problem is that unprincipled (and I am being precisely descriptive, not insulting, with that word) people do not recognize any basis for choosing which method is appropriate other than pragmatic calculation (e.g. if they think can get enough politicians to vote to ban something they don’t like, they’ll do it; if not, they’ll restrict themselves to persuasion until they can get more power).
Let’s take a look at Afghanistan.
The U.S. imposing morality on to Afghanistan:
Afghanistan’s Loya Jerga imposing morality on to its own people:
Colin Powell goes on to say:
(Yes, I’m equating values to morality in this case.)
It would seem that the U.S. is freely ignoring the morality that follows the sharia law. We have chosen that since this is our belief system that men and women are to be treated equally here, that they must be treated equally there. There seems to be a line between the necessity to “respect diversity” and “applying morality”. And where that line is drawn is going to favor applying morality first. How else could our country ignore the sharia law and the culture of some of the Islamic people that hold this belief? Colin Powell is demonstrating that the rights of the Afghan women trump any other morality that the Loya Jirga say to be correct.
More Powell:
(Ignoring the irony in the statement since it took almost 150 years and the 15th and 19th amendments for full suffrage of African-Americans and women to come about), we are not only imposing our morality on to Afghanistan’s charter, but our shifting morality that’s only been around for less than 100 years.
The U.S. is learning, albeit slowly, that adults need to be treated on equal levels. That gender, race, religious creed, age, et al, should not be factors in rights. That what was once a consensual crime, like sodomy, medicinal drug use, assisted suicide, should be respected as one’s own personal and private events. The morality just seems to be shifting that way IMO, especially with Massachusett’s allowing gay marriage. I think that this is a good thing. That consenting adults should be able to do what they want to do as long as it’s not harming anyone. That whatever your religion, race, sexuality, etc, you should be treated as an equal.
I have no problem imposing that morality on everyone, that everyone should be treated as equals.