# Is there a place for "Sanctity" in a modern society? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 3, 2023, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028 "2023-10-03T01:15:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 5, 2023, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/81 "2023-10-05T23:59:35Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I never opined that a society where adultery is acceptable is worse than one where adultery is unacceptable. Well, this is Great Debates - isn’t that the point? In the abstract, utilitarianism or not, shouldn’t we determine which society is best (through utilitarianism or through whatever lens you prefer) and then strive to achieve that society? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I’m trying to ascertain whether you think my opinion has no place in modern society I do not think this opinion has a place in a modern society in the sense that it should not guide society’s rules in any way. I think you _having that opinion_ is fine. > [@Max\_S](#): > > My experience is that this opinion - that adultery is intrinsically wrong and marriage is sacrosanct - is _commonplace in modern society_. This is my experience, too. And I’ll even let you in on a little secret - I _personally_ have a distaste for adultery too. I have no interest in being in an open relationship; I don’t really understand the people who do. But I’m also introspective enough to realize that this personal opinion of mine is no basis for a system of government. If other people want to live a different life than I do, and it makes them happy, and no one is hurt, then who am I to judge? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I will reserve my response to this pending my understanding of this Rawlsian experiment. See above, let me know if I need to repost or if you have questions (I love this thought experiment, I learned about it in college and it is one of a handful of experiences that shifted my worldview from one a lot more similar to yours to the one I hold now.) ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/82 "2023-10-06T00:00:15Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > (emph mine) > > ~Max The bill quoted was already amended to lose its teeth before it was put down for good ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/83 "2023-10-06T01:03:16Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > It’s a thought experiment to determine whether something is moral, also called Original Position. > > > [@](#): > > > > In the original position, you are asked to consider which principles you would select for the basic structure of society, but you must select as if you had no knowledge ahead of time what position you would end up having in that society. This choice is made from behind a “veil of ignorance”, which prevents you from knowing your ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially in Rawls’ formulation, your or anyone else’s idea of how to lead a good life. Ideally, this would force participants to select principles impartially and rationally.[ > > Imagine that you are a being outside of space and time with no gender, age, sexual identity, religion, or ideology. You are about to be born into the world as a random person living in it. You could be absolutely anyone. A king or a slave. Etc. > > From this position, for example, you would mever support a slave state, because you wouldn’t know if you are going to be born a slave or a master. That’s not necessarily true. I don’t want to extensively re-litigate my views on the morality of slavery in hypothetical situations, since that’s a major hijack. But concerning social stratification, if it is given as a premise that some people are more suited for certain positions, _ **and without what you call “sanctity”** _, then in the abstract I would not only tolerate but even _prefer_ a totalitarian society where each person has a position that matches their competence. If, for example, the pseudo-science of phrenology were true or accepted as true, and lacking the sanctity of the home as a fallback, I would support taking children away from parents whose skulls had a contour indicating they don’t (can’t) love their children, etc. even acknowledging that I might have such characteristics. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/84 "2023-10-06T01:24:10Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > If we say life begins at conception, harm principles apply to the fetus. > [@Max\_S](#): > > I can readily demonstrate the mother’s capacity for pain, but not the fetus’s. > [@Babale](#): > > Taking away someone’s freedom _is_ harming them (as we can see through the Rawlsian experiment - no sane actor would ever create a society in which freedom is restricted in this way). This is a line of argument where I am adapting your system of morals, as I understand them. Given a choice between two alternatives, one should choose the path of less harm. Patient complains of severe emotional distress after learning of her pregnancy and requests an abortion. The pregnancy is not complicated at this time but she said she is willing to take “drastic measures” if she can not get an abortion officially, understood to mean self-induced abortion. How would I interpret this scenario, assuming the fetus has personhood, and assuming the paramount object of morality is harm avoidance? If I perform the abortion, one person dies with minimal risk of complication or side effects. Furthermore they don’t suffer from pain. If I do not perform the abortion, there is a high chance of one person dying and a significant chance that a second person suffers permanent physical and emotional damage, potentially death, which would negatively affect other people they know. There will be physical pain and emotional pain. In which case it makes sense to perform the abortion. (ETA: With the given assumptions, I would endorse a society where abortion is acceptable in the above circumstances even if it turns out I’d be aborted as a fetus.) Do you have a different calculus? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/85 "2023-10-06T01:44:32Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > if it is given as a premise that some people are more suited for certain positions, _ **and without what you call “sanctity”** _, then in the abstract I would not only tolerate but even _prefer_ a totalitarian society where each person has a position that matches their competence. Human nature being what it is, do you _really_ think it is possible to create a totalitarian society where everyone’s happiness is maximized by assigning them the best job for their personality? You think you can solve the dual challenges of accurately predicting and weighing what people are suited for _ **AND** _ convincing people that this is what’s best for them such that they accept this happily? If so (and one could theorize of advanced AI being able to do this, for example) then I’d be open to being convinced that such a society is superior to a freeform one. But until you can reliably demonstrate the sort of predictive ability necessary to make that work, your society fails the Veil of Ignorance test. No sanctity needed. > [@Max\_S](#): > > , for example, the pseudo-science of phrenology were true or accepted as true, and lacking the sanctity of the home as a fallback, I would support taking children away from parents whose skulls had a contour indicating they don’t (can’t) love their children, etc. even acknowledging that I might have such characteristics. That’s a great big IF doing a lot of heavy lifting there. IF taking away children on this basis was **so reliable** that from outside the Veil of Ignorance I would prefer that society does such a thing _taking into consideration that I could be born as someone taken away from their parents or as someone who has their kid taken away_, then maybe this would be the path for society to take. But this is a **monumentally high bar to clear**. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/86 "2023-10-06T01:58:10Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > However there are 17 states where clergy must report child abuse even if they learn about it during confession. I’d be surprised to learn of a single instance where the privilege was violated. It would make big news, and if it was a Catholic priest, he would be expected as a matter of religious law to die before breaking the seal of confession. There are martyrs who became saints for that express reason. In one case, the federal 9th Circuit (which covers California, mind you) ruled that it is unconstitutional as a matter of law for the state to monitor sacramental confessions, as this violates both free exercise of religion and privacy rights. _Mockaitis v. Harcleroad_, 104 F.3d 1522 (9th Cir. 1997), _overruled on other grounds by City of Boerne v. Flores_, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), _superseded by statute_, Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/87 "2023-10-06T02:05:42Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I do not think this opinion has a place in a modern society in the sense that it should not guide society’s rules in any way. I think you _having that opinion_ is fine. Suppose there are more people with my opinion than there are people with your opinion. And we vote to make adultery a crime, even in cases where individual harm cannot be proved. Should not our law be enforceable? After all, isn’t modern society democratic? ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/88 "2023-10-06T02:06:43Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If I perform the abortion, one person dies with minimal risk of complication or side effects. Furthermore they don’t suffer from pain. If I do not perform the abortion, there is a high chance of one person dying and a significant chance that a second person suffers permanent physical and emotional damage, potentially death, which would negatively affect other people they know. There will be physical pain and emotional pain. In which case it makes sense to perform the abortion. > > (ETA: With the given assumptions, I would endorse a society where abortion is acceptable in the above circumstances even if it turns out I’d be aborted as a fetus.) > > Do you have a different calculus? I don’t consider a fetus to be equivalent to a person. But if I had to reason from the lens of fetal personhood, yes, I would still support abortion for the reasons you mention. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/89 "2023-10-06T02:07:28Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I’d be surprised to learn of a single instance where the privilege was violated. ISTM the law protects clergy if a communication was done in a confessional/penitent context. That protection seems inviolable and absolute (and has been since forever). Outside of that context I do not think protections apply to clergy (e.g. you have your priest over for dinner and he witnesses child abuse…that is not protected just because he is a priest and he may well be obligated to report that abuse). ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/90 "2023-10-06T02:31:44Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Human nature being what it is, do you _really_ think it is possible to create a totalitarian society where everyone’s happiness is maximized by assigning them the best job for their personality? […] No, I don’t. But that’s fighting the hypothetical. > [@Babale](#): > > If so (and one could theorize of advanced AI being able to do this, for example) then I’d be open to being convinced that such a society is superior to a freeform one. This is the response I expected. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong. I admit I would come to the same conclusion under the same axioms. I elicit these responses to distinguish myself and my opinions from yours. You cannot reach the same conclusions as I do with mere harm analysis, at least not in these hypothetical cases, because we are different people with different ideas of right and wrong. > [@Babale](#): > > I don’t consider a fetus to be equivalent to a person. But if I had to reason from the lens of fetal personhood, yes, I would still support abortion for the reasons you mention. I don’t consider a fetus to be equivalent from a person either. (I’m partial to natural viability.) The hypothetical world where phrenology is true science is far-fetched, but this is less so. Many people in today’s modern society do, for whatever reason (often religious), believe fetuses are people. Most Americans believe abortions should be prohibited after three months. There’s something going into their calculus that isn’t in yours. We just demonstrated it isn’t merely that a fetus is a person after three months. I suggest it is respect for “sanctity” of life. Which goes towards the point I just made about democracy. You don’t have to suppose. There really are more people that would prohibit abortion in cases that you and even I, if we applied a harm standard, wouldn’t prohibit abortion. Does their opinion have a place in modern society? Where I live, abortions are prohibited after six weeks. I wouldn’t prefer that but it’s not my decision. Having **Max\_S** or **Babale** dictate law fails the Rawl’s veil of ignorance test. The question to me is more about whether one’s opinion should determine public policy, when the actual public disagrees. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/91 "2023-10-06T02:38:50Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > ISTM the law protects clergy if a communication was done in a confessional/penitent context. That protection seems inviolable and absolute (and has been since forever). > > Outside of that context I do not think protections apply to clergy (e.g. you have your priest over for dinner and he witnesses child abuse…that is not protected just because he is a priest and he may well be obligated to report that abuse). This is my understanding, too. The priest-penitent privilege is inviolable but only applies in a formally confessional/penitent context. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 6:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/92 "2023-10-06T06:30:40Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Suppose there are more people with my opinion than there are people with your opinion. And we vote to make adultery a crime, even in cases where individual harm cannot be proved. Should not our law be enforceable? After all, isn’t modern society democratic? Of course I do not think that the majority should be able to do whatever they want. Not all that long ago the majority of Americans moght have thought that Black people should be property, or that women should serve their husbands and not take on too public a role. Surely you agree that if we all got together tomorrow and voted to reinstate chattel slavery, this would be wrong, democracy be damned. > [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > Human nature being what it is, do you _really_ think it is possible to create a totalitarian society where everyone’s happiness is maximized by assigning them the best job for their personality? […] > > No, I don’t. But that’s fighting the hypothetical. Not really. The hypothetical is that you are designing a society from outside that society knowing that once you are done you will live your life as a member of that society without knowing which one. If you only need to appeal to sanctity to protect against impossible societies that can’t be designed in reality then maybe sanctity isn’t actually doing anything? > [@Max\_S](#): > > This is the response I expected. I’m not arguing that you’re wrong. I admit I would come to the same conclusion under the same axioms. I elicit these responses to distinguish myself and my opinions from yours. You cannot reach the same conclusions as I do with mere harm analysis, at least not in these hypothetical cases, because we are different people with different ideas of right and wrong. Fine, so you disagree, even about this kind of society where the AI deciding where people will work is so smart that people are ecstatic about it? Because of sanctity? What in that scenario is the “sanctity violation” exactly? How do we determine what is “sanctified”? > [@Max\_S](#): > > Which goes towards the point I just made about democracy. You don’t have to suppose. There really are more people that would prohibit abortion in cases that you and even I, if we applied a harm standard, wouldn’t prohibit abortion. Does their opinion have a place in modern society? Where I live, abortions are prohibited after six weeks. I wouldn’t prefer that but it’s not my decision. Having **Max\_S** or **Babale** dictate law fails the Rawl’s veil of ignorance test. The question to me is more about whether one’s opinion should determine public policy, when the actual public disagrees. I would argue that the public can debate and decide on lesser issues, but some rights should be fundamental, because violating them hurts people. That should be part of the purpose of a constitution. So something like a law punishing adultery should be unconstitutional. A law banning abortion should be unconstitutional. Enslaving people should be unconstitutional. No amount of popular support should lead to people doing these things. If you’re opposed to abortion because you believe life has sanctity, good for you; you _should not get to impose that belief on others_. ---
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 6:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/93 "2023-10-06T06:37:32Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > The very idea that Sanctity might be optional only started gaining widespread acceptance in the last couple centuries at best. If anything, I think it’s impressive that we threw off its figurative chains to the extent that we _have_ so quickly. The thread has suddenly blown up with a whole other discussion since this exchange, so I won’t try to drag it back in the previous direction. Instead, I’ll just note that you appear to be an optimist while I am a jaded cynic, and our relative positions and arguments reflect this. It will fall to our great-grandchildren to see which view is more correct in the long term. ---
**Author:** ![puzzlegal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/puzzlegal/32/3827_2.png) [@puzzlegal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/puzzlegal)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/94 "2023-10-06T12:11:19Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > I’d like to know respect for what types of sanctity. Consider language. Cleanliness of language, in public, was considered a moral virtue when I was growing up, and that everyone used naughty language in private felt kind of dirty. Today the Times and the New Yorker publish stuff that would not be considered fit for Playboy. I don’t think the hardwiring for that sanctity was very deep. It was purely cultural. > The example of dressing for work is similar. Bill Gates’ first billion did a lot to break any kind of dress codes. He didn’t exactly come from the wrong side of the tracks, but came from a culture where youth counted more than respectability. This was explicit in Silicon Valley. When I started at Sun part of my welcome packet was an article about how Scott McNealy thought suits and ties were really stupid. I don’t think that what we consider sacrosanct is “hardwired”. That’s obviously cultural, and we can see large differences over time and across different regions. I just think the tendency to pick some items or ideals and consider them inviolable is part of our wiring. I prefer the terminology “purity”, honestly, because i think that’s closer to how it plays out. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/95 "2023-10-06T19:00:53Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Surely you agree that if we all got together tomorrow and voted to reinstate chattel slavery, this would be wrong, democracy be damned. That’s complicated. If people wanted to become slaves I wouldn’t have a problem with it. It would never happen, but that’s fighting the hypothetical. I don’t want to be reduced to chattel slavery, but if I did, well you see the tautology. From a God’s eye perspective, I don’t believe a valid purpose of sanctity is to protect people from themselves. What I’m saying is that mere slavery doesn’t violate sanctity. Some forms of slavery do, but not all. Even in the religious sense, some forms of chattel slavery are [endorsed](https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21), including [slavery for life](https://www.sefaria.org/Exodus.21.5). Maybe you agreed with other members about sanctity of human dignity. It could be argued that reducing a person to slavery strips them of human dignity. I never endorsed such a concept; my view is that dignity comes from within, not without. > [@Babale](#): > > Fine, so you disagree, even about this kind of society where the AI deciding where people will work is so smart that people are ecstatic about it? Because of sanctity? What in that scenario is the “sanctity violation” exactly? How do we determine what is “sanctified”? You may have lost track of the scenario. The specific scenario was that a child is torn from her parent, not because of demonstrated neglect or abuse but because the contour of his or her skull, according to accepted science, demonstrates relative lack of _mental capacity_ to love one’s child. The sanctity involved here is of the home and family. My belief is that no rational person, myself included, would willingly let the state violate the sanctity of the home and family by taking the child, even if it is _predicted_ to reduce the ultimate harm to the child or society. Demonstrated harm is another thing, but a prediction, no matter how confident, defies my sense of moral understanding. (Free will is another axiom we disagree on.) The scenario fails the veil of ignorance test. If, however, I adopt what I believe are your moral beliefs, then the outcome is different. It is a given in the hypothetical that removing the child results in less harm to the child and society. That constitutes the entire analysis. Sanctity is not part of the equation. The only rational choice is to remove the child, and so adopting these beliefs, the scenario passes the Rawls veil of ignorance test. > [@Babale](#): > > I would argue that the public can debate and decide on lesser issues, but some rights should be fundamental, because violating them hurts people. […] If you’re opposed to abortion because you believe life has sanctity, good for you; you _should not get to impose that belief on others_ . For any right _you_ consider fundamental, I can craft a scenario where violating that right results in less harm. So no, I think you should reconsider that statement. This is the point I’m trying to make about sanctity: it is an independent source of morality from harm. It results in different perspectives, in different choices, both personal and in public policy. You make a rational argument. But I don’t agree with the fundamental premise - that the paramount object of morality is to prevent harm. You haven’t convinced me; you _can’t_ convince me. I won’t concede that adultery should be unconstitutional. I won’t concede that a law banning abortion should be unconstitutional. (For practical purposes, I do agree that enslaving people should be unconstitutional.) I would argue that a law compelling priests to disclose confessions from penitents is and should be unconstitutional. There are more people who agree with me than there are who agree with you. Modern society _does_ value “sanctity”, notwithstanding your contrary opinions. We have passed laws banning adultery and abortion, and protecting the seal of confession. It’s a _fait accompli_. The burden is on you to convince us otherwise, and furthermore the beliefs that you personally hold as expounded in this discussion are insufficient. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/96 "2023-10-06T19:29:13Z")
> [@puzzlegal](#): > > I just think the tendency to pick some items or ideals and consider them inviolable is part of our wiring. In other words, everyone agrees that their is an obviously best ice cream flavor, they just disagree what it is. I agree that some such thing is hardwired in by evolution, but like most traits some people’s wiring is a bit off. ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/97 "2023-10-06T19:52:49Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > Maybe you agreed with other members about sanctity of human dignity. It could be argued that reducing a person to slavery strips them of human dignity. I never endorsed such a concept; my view is that dignity comes from within, not without. I _don’t_ resort to vague terms like “human dignity”. It’s quite simple - slavery harms people. I can tell it harms people because from putside the Veil of Ignorance I would never choose a slaver society because I would not want to be a slave. > [@Max\_S](#): > > > [@Babale](#): > > > > Fine, so you disagree, even about this kind of society where the AI deciding where people will work is so smart that people are ecstatic about it? Because of sanctity? What in that scenario is the “sanctity violation” exactly? How do we determine what is “sanctified”? > > You may have lost track of the scenario. The specific scenario was that a child is torn from her parent, not because of demonstrated neglect or abuse but because the contour of his or her skull, according to accepted science, demonstrates relative lack of _mental capacity_ to love one’s child. This was in reponse to your scenario where a totalitarian regime dictates what you do, not the skull shape hypothetical. For the skull shape hypothetical, then yes, if skull shape was such a reliable predictor of parents who cannot love (and would therefore potentially harm) their children, then it would make sense to take children away from people whose skull shape showed they were going to harm their kid. We don’t live in a universe where that’s the case, so it doesn’t make sense to do something like that. If we lived in an entirely different universe with different rules, then morality would be different. > [@Max\_S](#): > > If, however, I adopt what I believe are your moral beliefs, then the outcome is different. It is a given in the hypothetical that removing the child results in less harm to the child and society. That constitutes the entire analysis. Sanctity is not part of the equation. The only rational choice is to remove the child, and so adopting these beliefs, the scenario passes the Rawls veil of ignorance test. So let’s say that we lived in the world you postulated. Skull shape directly relates to behavior. We can predict, with 100% certainty, that if you have a skull that’s got a ratio of X to Y on measurements A and B with a lump 3 inches on the lower left hemisphere, you WILL harm your child. Are you really telling me that in such a world you would let children get abused or even killed just to preserve _sanctity_, when science could stop 100% of those cases? I don’t see how such a system of morality could be anything but evil. > [@Max\_S](#): > > For any right _you_ consider fundamental, I can craft a scenario where violating that right results in less harm. So no, I think you should reconsider that statement. This is the point I’m trying to make about sanctity: it is an independent source of morality from harm. It results in different perspectives, in different choices, both personal and in public policy. That’s precisely why I don’t want to rethink this perspective. And _neither do you_. Life is sacred and must not be ended - except for a long list of times when I’m sure you’d agree that the government is justified in killing someone. If life is sacred, then life is sacred even if someone got sentenced to death or is an enemy combatant. And yet, you’re fine with suspending sanctity under the right circumstances. Why is it fine for you to make that moral calculus, but so shocking that I would be willing to do it? I agree, there are situations that could be conceived of where every right, no matter how fundamental, would be suspended. That’s trivially easy to prove. The most fundamental right is the right to life, yet I am sure that every single one of us could think of a situation where killing is morally right. > [@Max\_S](#): > > You make a rational argument. But I don’t agree with the fundamental premise - that the paramount object of morality is to prevent harm Then make your case for why sanctity should be included. Where does it come from? How do we determine what is sanctified and what is not? For example, you earlier expressed opposition to the idea of a totalitarian regime that told people what sort of work they must do: > [@Max\_S](#): > > But concerning social stratification, if it is given as a premise that some people are more suited for certain positions, _ **and without what you call “sanctity”** _, then in the abstract I would not only tolerate but even _prefer_ a totalitarian society where each person has a position that matches their competence You seem to argue that such a society violates sanctity in some way. Yet you, like me, are Jewish, no? Who better to determine what sanctity is than God? And the society that God lays out for Israel is one that’s eerily similar to the apparently-incompatible-with-sanctity totalitarian state you describe: 1. It is a hereditary monarchy - as close to a totalitarian state as is possible without modern communication methods. 2. The most important jobs in society are assigned to divinely ordained groups - the Cohanim and the Leviim. 3. Women, slaves, and foreigners are all prescribed with very specific ways to live. So a society where a higher intelligence tells everyone how to live their lives seems perfectly sanctified to me. Far more compatible than any society that could pass the “Veil of Ignorance” test. Without knowing how to determine what is or isn’t sanctified, why on Earth would we assume that including sanctity is going to prevent bad things like totalitarian regimes or babies being taken from their mothers? ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/98 "2023-10-06T21:49:23Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > from putside the Veil of Ignorance I would never choose a slaver society because I would not want to be a slave. That’s fighting your own hypothetical, where it is given that “we all got together tomorrow and voted to reinstate chattel slavery.” It follows that the people who would become slaves do, in fact, vote to reinstate slavery. If you _don’t_ vote for slavery you don’t exist in this hypothetical. Maybe I’m misunderstanding the application of this veil of ignorance test. > [@Babale](#): > > This was in reponse to your scenario where a totalitarian regime dictates what you do, not the skull shape hypothetical. It was one hypothetical. Phrenology was an example of a totalitarian regime removing a child because it decides the parent is not competent to raise a child. It makes no difference, so far as I am concerned, if some AI overlord makes the same determination without the use of phrenology. > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > if it is given as a premise that some people are more suited for certain positions, _ **and without what you call “sanctity”** _, then in the abstract I would not only tolerate but even _prefer_ a totalitarian society where each person has a position that matches their competence. If, for example, the pseudo-science of phrenology were true or accepted as true, and lacking the sanctity of the home as a fallback, I would support taking children away from parents whose skulls had a contour indicating they don’t (can’t) love their children, etc. even acknowledging that I might have such characteristics. > [@Babale](#): > > Are you really telling me that in such a world you would let children get abused or even killed just to preserve _sanctity_, when science could stop 100% of those cases? I would make that trade. For me, it’s not about harm. Harm is an afterthought. For the same reason I would oppose a regime of genetic testing and forced sterilizations. I am reminded of a point I made in a former debate, > [@Does religion have a place in public debate?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-religion-have-a-place-in-public-debate/834709/490): > > To this I respond that not all forms of eugenics are scientifically _invalid_. Consider the forced sterilization of those positively identified with Huntington’s disease along with mandatory screening for their immediate family. According to Wikipedia up to 10% of people with Huntington’s disease acquired it from a new mutation, the other 90% would inherit the disease. As a matter of science, I hypothesize that forced sterilization and mandatory screening would, over time, reduce the number of people with the disease. > > Of course, I think such a scheme is wildly unethical. But why? Because people have the right to reproduce, the right to privacy, and besides, people can live a full and happy life without ever noticing they have the disease. > [@Babale](#): > > except for a long list of times when I’m sure you’d agree that the government is justified in killing someone. Justified is a loaded word. Legal justification is not moral justification and moral justification depends on specific circumstances. I wrote before, and I mean it, that sanctity is not paramount. Authority is. It is my opinion that the a decision of government or the enactment of a law may be utterly immoral, yet when it comes time to enforce it, the moral path may be to obey. You should know that about me, from previous discussions. Under my beliefs, it may be wrong to enact a law punishing a crime with death, yet once the law is passed, it is right to carry out the punishment. It may be wrong to vote for slavery, yet once slavery is reinstated, right to implement it. Wrong to authorize the government to violate the sanctity of the home, or of life, but it may be right once so authorized to carry out the violation. The key point is that it is always wrong in the first instance. No advances in science or technology or pseudoscience or propaganda can dilute what I consider fundamental rights. But violations may be authorized. I’ve made a lot of legal arguments here where I defended the state’s right to do something bad. That doesn’t mean I think the state necessarily should bad things, only that they are authorized to. > [@Babale](#): > > I agree, there are situations that could be conceived of where every right, no matter how fundamental, would be suspended. That’s trivially easy to prove. Would be suspended, easily. Should be suspended, for you, maybe. For me? I may choose to let world burn. > [@Babale](#): > > And the society that God lays out for Israel is one that’s eerily similar to the apparently-incompatible-with-sanctity totalitarian state you describe The hypothetical I put forward involved taking children away from parents due to no fault of the parent. It’s not the division of labor or pervasive moral rules that violates sanctity of the home or family, it’s the destruction of family ties. I’m not religious any more, but I am also not aware of anything in Jewish belief that would promote forcibly taking a child away from his or her parents. I can think of two instances where a child is offered as sacrificed to God, but in the first (binding of Isaac) the sacrifice was aborted, and in the second instance the father (Yiftach) was punished with leprosy. Likewise the selling of daughters into domestic service was permitted but not forcible taking. ~Max ---
**Author:** ![Babale](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/babale/32/15666_2.png) [@Babale](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Babale)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/99 "2023-10-06T22:09:03Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > That’s fighting your own hypothetical, where it is given that “we all got together tomorrow and voted to reinstate chattel slavery.” Sorry, to be clear, I meant “we” as in “the people who would end up being slavers in this situation”; it doesn’t mean that we unanimously agree that slavery is great whether you’re a slave or not, it means some of us declare that slavery is OK and enslave the rest. Democratically, it would take 51% of the population of enslave as much as 49%, no? > [@Max\_S](#): > > I would make that trade. For me, it’s not about harm. Harm is an afterthought. For the same reason I would oppose a regime of genetic testing and forced sterilizations. I am reminded of a point I made in a former debate, If it wasn’t for those who insisted that the process of human reproduction is too _sanctified_ to mess with, then we’d be able to do things like use IVF and genetic screening, combined with genetic editing techniques, to ensure that people with Huntington’s can safely have children without passing on the disease. > [@Max\_S](#): > > Justified is a loaded word. Legal justification is not moral justification and moral justification depends on specific circumstances. I wrote before, and I mean it, that sanctity is not paramount. Authority is. It is my opinion that the a decision of government or the enactment of a law may be utterly immoral, yet when it comes time to enforce it, the moral path may be to obey. You should know that about me, from previous discussions. Why? I get it - that’s your moral framework - but I make the effort to justify my moral framework; what’s the justification for yours? > [@Max\_S](#): > > The hypothetical I put forward involved taking children away from parents due to no fault of the parent. It’s not the division of labor or pervasive moral rules that violates sanctity of the home or family, it’s the destruction of family ties. OK, so in the hypothetical world you presented, where some force (AI, skull shape, whatever) can genuinely tell us with 100% certainty that a parent will abuse or kill their child, you would not support breaking family ties to save the child? Are you against taking a child away _after_ abuse occurs? After all, family ties are sacred no matter what. ---
**Author:** ![Max\_S](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/46a35a/32.png) [@Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_S)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/100 "2023-10-06T22:31:59Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Sorry, to be clear, I meant “we” as in “the people who would end up being slavers in this situation”; it doesn’t mean that we unanimously agree that slavery is great whether you’re a slave or not, it means some of us declare that slavery is OK and enslave the rest. I see. In that case, no, I wouldn’t support that from the veil of ignorance, or even without it. > [@Babale](#): > > I make the effort to justify my moral framework; what’s the justification for yours? I don’t have a single justification for all of my beliefs. The fact that there isn’t a single justification is a major tenet of the system. It’s a patchwork system that I try to keep consistent, practical, and conscionable, with the goal of guiding future action. > [@Babale](#): > > OK, so in the hypothetical world you presented, where some force (AI, skull shape, whatever) can genuinely tell us with 100% certainty that a parent will abuse or kill their child, you would not support breaking family ties to save the child? I would not. > [@Babale](#): > > Are you against taking a child away _after_ abuse occurs? I am not. I would even support taking a child away before abuse occurs, but not without wrongdoing by the parent. For example if the parent abuses another child. In such circumstances the action of the parent violates the ‘sanctity’ of the family, such violation coming from within, it isn’t a violation at all. Just like if I invite you into my home, you aren’t violating the sanctity of my home; so too, if I destroy my own door, and you can see inside, you aren’t violating my privacy. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028.md?page=6)