# 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:** 6
**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, 10:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/101 "2023-10-06T22:40:29Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > 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. I agree with you _in the real world_ because in the real world it isn’t possible to predict with 100% accuracy (or even anything close to it) that someone would abuse. But in the hypothetical where we _can_ know with certainty, it seems to me that if you _know_ that someone is about to commit abuse and you stand idly by because of sanctity you are culpable in that abuse. > [@Max\_S](#): > > 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. 1. What is the purpose of this system? 2. How do you determine what the rules of this system are? ---
**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, 10:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/102 "2023-10-06T22:41:25Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > I see. In that case, no, I wouldn’t support that from the veil of ignorance, or even without it. Great! We agree on _something_! ---
**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, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/103 "2023-10-06T22:51:53Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > What is the purpose of this system? A moral system purports to answer the question, “How should I act?” To accomplish this goal, it must also be able to judge any decision, past or future. It must also be practical. > [@Babale](#): > > How do you determine what the rules of this system are? Personally, 1. Does the rule lead to an unconscionable decision? 2. Does application of the rule undermine its rationale? 3. Is the rule consistent with other accepted rules? And, personally, I take on the air of an apologist when answering these questions for myself. I also recognize that everyone disagrees on what is or is not unconscionable, and even I might not know just by thinking about something. ~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, 11:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/104 "2023-10-06T23:06:52Z")
Awesome, let’s explore this. > [@Max\_S](#): > > A moral system purports to answer the question, “How should I act?” > To accomplish this goal, it must also be able to judge any decision, past or future. It must also be practical. You’ve described _what_ a moral system does, but my question is, what is it’s _purpose_? You can’t answer the question “how should I act?” without first answering the question “what am I trying to accomplish?”. > [@Max\_S](#): > > - Does the rule lead to an unconscionable decision? How do you determine whether a decision is unconscionable? I may have other questions later but I think this is a good start. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 6, 2023, 11:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/105 "2023-10-06T23:53:37Z")
> [@Max\_S](#): > > If that’s not sanctity, I don’t know what is. I’ll say it: I don’t know what sanctity is. > [@](#): > > If I shoot a person without intent to kill, but actually kill, that decision does not carry the same moral weight as if I intentionally shoot to kill. Likewise if I shoot in order to preserve life, and in doing so actually take a life, that decision doesn’t carry the same moral weight. So, there’s sanctity of life, but if I shoot someone with the intent to preserve life, it doesn’t carry the same moral weight? Why not? If I’m shooting them in a way that I can predict is likely to result in their death, how does my saying, “BUT I WAS TRYING TO SAVE LIFE” affect its sanctity? What is sanctity here? > [@Max\_S](#): > > The police break into a home pursuant to good faith reliance on a defective warrant - the clerk wrote the wrong house number or some such error. A court will (and should) find that the police had authority and are immune from litigation. The government is nevertheless in the wrong, because they have destroyed the sanctity of the home. Is the government in the wrong if they have a legitimate warrant? If not, what does “the sanctity of the home” even mean? I find this concept–at least the way you’re using it–to be incoherent. Could you define this “sanctity” for us, and give us a way to determine whether sanctity exists around something, and a way to determine when sanctity is violated, and when violating the sanctity is wrong? ---
**Author:** ![foolsguinea](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/foolsguinea/32/14751_2.png) [@foolsguinea](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/foolsguinea)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2023, 12:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/106 "2023-10-07T00:40:36Z")
This argument has been around for a while, and I just think it’s untrue. I don’t think the right wing care about “Sanctity” as a rule. I think that, like the Framers of the Constitution whom they deify, they care about their own “Liberty” at others’ expense. “Dog eat dog” thinking. Any pretense that they are more morally complicated or more morally sophisticated than lefties is whitewashing. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2023, 4:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/107 "2023-10-07T16:13:21Z")
The Sanctity of Marriage was discussed at length here and everywhere else when Homosexual Marriage was a hot topic. Turns out it was just bigotry. Nothing more. So I am still waiting for an example of ‘sanctity’ being a distinct virtue in our society worth protecting with law. ---
**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 9, 2023, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/108 "2023-10-09T14:07:56Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > that’s not sanctity, I don’t know what is. > > I’ll say it: I don’t know what sanctity is. > > > [@](#): > > > > If I shoot a person without intent to kill, but actually kill, that decision does not carry the same moral weight as if I intentionally shoot to kill. Likewise if I shoot in order to preserve life, and in doing so actually take a life, that decision doesn’t carry the same moral weight. > > So, there’s sanctity of life, but if I shoot someone with the intent to preserve life, it doesn’t carry the same moral weight? Why not? If I’m shooting them in a way that I can predict is likely to result in their death, how does my saying, “BUT I WAS TRYING TO SAVE LIFE” affect its sanctity? What is sanctity here? I agree. I still cannot tell what this sanctity @Max_S is talking about is or how to determine if I’m acting in accordance with it or not. How do we determine what is sacred? > [@Sitnam](#): > > The Sanctity of Marriage was discussed at length here and everywhere else when Homosexual Marriage was a hot topic. > > Turns out it was just bigotry. Nothing more. Yeah, so far it does appear like sanctity is just a way to say “I don’t like this _so much_ that I declare it objectively bad”. And maybe some things, like rape or murder, _are_ objectively bad. But other things, like gay or interracial marriage, are not. Yet all four of those things have at times been said to violate “sanctity”. How do we differentiate the valid from the invalid here? **I** would argue based on harm. But @Max_S disagrees - but hasn’t told us what he would use instead. ---
**Author:** ![Sitnam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/6a8cbe/32.png) [@Sitnam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sitnam)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 2:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/109 "2023-10-09T14:15:21Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > > [@Sitnam](#): > > > > The Sanctity of Marriage was discussed at length here and everywhere else when Homosexual Marriage was a hot topic. > > > > Turns out it was just bigotry. Nothing more. > > Yeah, so far it does appear like sanctity is just a way to say “I don’t like this _so much_ that I declare it objectively bad”. > > And maybe some things, like rape or murder, _are_ objectively bad. But other things, like gay or interracial marriage, are not. Yet all four of those things have at times been said to violate “sanctity”. How do we differentiate the valid from the invalid here? > > **I** would argue based on harm. But @Max_S disagrees - but hasn’t told us what he would use instead. Marriage IS sacred, or at least MINE is to ME. How I choose to conduct myself every day shows the world, my wife and myself that I value the bond I have made. It is not only no one else’s business, even if I cheated on my wife and broke my sacred covenant that has nothing whosoever to do with any institution of marriage. So what we are really discussing is limiting or changing the actions of others because of the feelings of a few. It isn’t a policy discussion on the best outcome for society or the preservation of individual liberty, it’s about feelings. I am not interested in other peoples feelings about how I conduct my life if it also in no way involves them. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 2:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/110 "2023-10-09T14:28:24Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > How do we determine what is sacred? Yeah. At one point I had a post started, but deleted it because as I read through the thread (on which I’d gotten behind), it turned out that nobody seemed to be talking about the same sort of thing as I was talking about. People are talking about human behavior as being sanctified or not, and about using the claim of impurity to, um, sanction people who aren’t behaving in ways that the sanctioners approve of. I was talking about sacred places, and about the feeling of holiness that people feel in such places and/or during particular rituals. I don’t think that ‘I feel upheld and at one with community/the universe while chanting this prayer/in this place’ is the same thing as ‘I think you are unholy because you have sex in a way I find yucky/I think God forbade!’. But we seem to be using the same words for both of these things. Can we protect the first without condoning the second? ---
**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 9, 2023, 2:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/111 "2023-10-09T14:44:52Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > Can we protect the first without condoning the second? I think we can absolutely do so by having society not take sanctity into account directly. Instead consider the harm involved only. Some guy marries another guy and you have to watch? Get over yourself, you weren’t harmed. Some company wants to bulldoze the sacred forest your ancestors used to worship at and where you still do to build a strip mall? They can go somewhere else. The government wants to stop you from worshipping the way your ancestors used to because Peyote is a Schedule 1 drug? They should stuff it. The government wants to stop you from worshipping the way your ancestors used to because tearing out the still-beating hearts of your enemies and devouring them is now considered “murder” or whatever? Actually, yeah. You should stop doing that. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 2:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/112 "2023-10-09T14:50:37Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I think we can absolutely do so by having society not take sanctity into account directly. Instead consider the harm involved only. > > Some guy marries another guy and you have to watch? Get over yourself, you weren’t harmed. > > Some company wants to bulldoze the sacred forest your ancestors used to worship at and where you still do to build a strip mall? They can go somewhere else. In order to consider the second as doing harm, it’s necessary to recognize the sacredness of that forest. This society’s been pretty bad at that. We’ve generally recognized the sanctity of churches, and have made some moves toward including temples and mosques – but recognizing the sanctity of places that have nothing built on them has been a problem. ---
**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 9, 2023, 3:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/113 "2023-10-09T15:13:25Z")
> [@thorny\_locust](#): > > In order to consider the second as doing harm, it’s necessary to recognize the sacredness of that forest. I don’t think so. You have to recognize that it is sacred _to people_, and that violating that _hurts people_. You don’t have to consider the church or forest or rock formation etc actually sacred to do so. > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > This society’s been pretty bad at that. We’ve generally recognized the sanctity of churches, and have made some moves toward including temples and mosques – but recognizing the sanctity of places that have nothing built on them has been a problem. But that’s because we’re still relying on our own sense of sanctity. Churches (and to a lesser extent those other buildings) are sacred _to our society_ so we protect them. From the harm lens, the church and the grove are equal. Destroying them harms people. At the same time I think that this should encourage us to take a look at the “sacred” things that our society _does_ respect. For example, the confessional seal was brought up earlier. Certainly telling Catholic priests that the law will no longer protect them if they do not report information related to child abuse harms Catholics in that it restricts their ability to freely practice their beliefs. Just as telling Aztec priests that human sacrifice is illegal restricts _their_ freedom. The question is which restrictions are valid. There is a debate to be had over, say, confession. But to simply declare it sacred and therefore off limits for debate is ludicrous, and unfairly favors those faiths that resemble those held by the Founding Fathers. Queensland is one place where they had that debate. > **[New laws in Queensland mean priests no longer protected by seal of confession](https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/sep/09/new-laws-in-queensland-mean-priests-no-longer-protected-by-seal-of-confession)** > > Queensland priests now face jail for failing to report cases of child sexual abuse as other Australian states debate similar proposals ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 3:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/114 "2023-10-09T15:26:19Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > > [@thorny\_locust](#): > > > > In order to consider the second as doing harm, it’s necessary to recognize the sacredness of that forest. > > I don’t think so. You have to recognize that it is sacred _to people_, and that violating that _hurts people_. You don’t have to consider the church or forest or rock formation etc actually sacred to do so. Ah. That distinction does make sense. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/115 "2023-10-09T16:10:51Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > Some company wants to bulldoze the sacred forest your ancestors used to worship at and where you still do to build a strip mall? They can go somewhere else. This one gets tricky to me, because I think the harm aspect is tied to judgments of sanctity. Consider these scenarios, all of which concern land that Walmart has bought and wants to bulldoze and build a store on. 1. The Cherokee have lived at this mound for a thousand years and consider it sacred, as the oldest known Cherokee settlement. 2. The Cherokee have lived around these parts for a thousand years, and this particular forest, while not a historical site, is in ecological condition closer to pre-Columbian conditions than any other. 3. The Cherokee own this land, having been granted formal title to it in a treaty, and it’s been managed as forestland for over two hundred years. 4. This land is next to my childhood home, and I spent my childhood years hiking in this land, and I know every tree and creek, and I would be devastated to see it all destroyed. I consider it a sacred forest. 5. This land abuts my backyard, of a house I only own after saving up my whole life for a house with a forest view. I consider it a sacred forest. 6. I once had a mystical experience in these woods in which I spoke to the God of the Forest who charged me with keeping the land undefiled. Mushrooms may or may not have been involved. Are some of these claims to sanctity more valid than others? Why? My gut feeling is that I listed them in descending order of sanctity, and that #1 should probably be protected and #6 shouldn’t be. But I’m not entirely clear on whether that’s a valid moral argument. ---
**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 9, 2023, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/116 "2023-10-09T21:34:22Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The Cherokee have lived at this mound for a thousand years and consider it sacred, as the oldest known Cherokee settlement. That sounds like a place whose destruction would both hurt lots of people (Cherokee who feel a bond to the site) and which would destroy a site of archaeological value (which reduces our total knowledge which is bad because knowledge helps us make better decisions). > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The Cherokee have lived around these parts for a thousand years, and this particular forest, while not a historical site, is in ecological condition closer to pre-Columbian conditions than any other. There may or may not still be an emotional bond between the Cherokee and this site, and if there is that should be taken into account. Otherwise, it sounds like the site does have ecological value, which is good both for the sake of knowledge and because healthy and diverse ecosystems make the production of food possible and gives us the opportunity to find new medicine, genomes, etc. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > The Cherokee own this land, having been granted formal title to it in a treaty, and it’s been managed as forestland for over two hundred years. If the Cherokee own the land than obviously taking it would harm them. There are times when this is justified (eminent domain) but considering the history maybe we can give the Cherokee a break. I think the remaining three are categorically different in that the site is only special to you. ---
**Author:** ![thorny\_locust](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/thorny_locust/32/431_2.png) [@thorny\_locust](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/thorny_locust)\ **Post date:** [October 9, 2023, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/117 "2023-10-09T22:37:23Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > I think the remaining three are categorically different in that the site is only special to you. 4 and 5 are often shared by a number of people who live/lived in the area. That’s how the Cherokee came to be connected to their land, after all. I don’t think emotional connection should be entirely discounted, just because it doesn’t come from a recognized group. They can sometimes be kind of iffy because the beloved houses were often built on, and destroyed, land that somebody else loved the same way up until those houses were built. However, the decision to build the house may not have been made by the person who doesn’t want more development, and may have been made multiple generations earlier. 4 and 5. however, can even under current law be considered an issue if it affects real estate value. The house right across the street from Big Box Mart may be worth less than the one across from the woods – at least to live in, if not to build another Big Box Mart (until they’re oversaturated and all go out of business . . . ) I agree that there does seem to be a sort of descending order in that list. But I also agree that I’m not entirely clear on it. – and at this point we’ve already damaged so much ecology that I have rather a knee-jerk reaction to Save All The Rest; including the partially damaged areas that might be able to recover. But that’s likely not to be possible. ---
**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 13, 2023, 3:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/118 "2023-10-13T03:19:49Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > > [@Max\_S](#): > > > > A moral system purports to answer the question, “How should I act?” > > To accomplish this goal, it must also be able to judge any decision, past or future. It must also be practical. > > You’ve described _what_ a moral system does, but my question is, what is it’s _purpose_? > > You can’t answer the question “how should I act?” without first answering the question “what am I trying to accomplish?”. I disagree. I think the purpose of a moral system is to guide human action. People develop and rely on moral systems to try and guide their actions. That _is_ its end, its purpose, it’s _raison d’être_. I specifically reject the notion that a moral system must serve any other purpose. I consider myself an existentialist, practically speaking. To have a higher goal is fundamentally incompatible with my philosophy. This also applies to my perception of other people’s moral systems. Your philosophy in life may be to reduce the harm and suffering in the world, yet so far as I am concerned, the purpose of your moral system is to guide your actions. > [@Babale](#): > > How do you determine whether a decision is unconscionable? I mean it in the literal, subjective sense. > [@Pitting Max\_S](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pitting-max-s/959074/605): > > unconscionable acts, meaning acts so strongly against my conscience that I could not live with myself if I carried it out, such as turning out a child in inclement weather or shooting an innocent. ~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 13, 2023, 5:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/119 "2023-10-13T05:29:33Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > So, there’s sanctity of life, but if I shoot someone with the intent to preserve life, it doesn’t carry the same moral weight? Why not? The doctrine of double-effect is ancient and the debate over its propriety well known (especially with regard to self-defense), so I would rather not detract from the thread by debating it further. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > What is sanctity here? If you will allow me to present another scenario, consider a pedestrian who runs onto a highway. The person is killed by oncoming traffic. Who destroyed his life - morally speaking? Was it the driver who caused a vehicle to crush him? Was it the victim who ran out into the road? I think it would depend. Consider these alternative circumstances. Perhaps the victim was suicidal and left a note detailing his plan to die on the highway. What if a third party had pushed the victim onto the road? What if the victim had run out on the highway to push another person out of harm’s way? Maybe the victim used a crosswalk, but the driver wasn’t paying attention. Maybe the driver was under the influence of drugs. Or, what if the driver’s car malfunctioned unexpectedly? What if the driver had a seizure or heart attack? I can imagine more bizarre circumstances. Suppose the ‘victim’ was in fact convicted and sentenced to death by automobile. Maybe a jury imposed the sentence or maybe it was a mandatory death sentence imposed by statute. What if the man is actually innocent? What if the people who passed that statute had all died years ago? The way I see it, the questions are whether sanctity has been destroyed, and if destroyed, _who_ destroys it, and _when_ it is destroyed. I do not doubt whether it exists at all. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Is the government in the wrong if they have a legitimate warrant? If not, what does “the sanctity of the home” even mean? If I invite you in my home, you are not violating the sanctity of my home by walking through my door. If I buy a home where the housing association dictates annual termite inspections, is the sanctity of my home violated when inspectors arrive, or have I consented to their presence by making my home in that community? If the county ordains inspectors to examine wells, or if the state ordains inspectors to investigate well-being of children, or officers who may under certain circumstances enter my home, are these violations of the sanctity of my home, or have I implicitly consented to such measures by making my home in that community and reaping the benefits of citizenship? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Could you define this “sanctity” for us, > [@Max\_S](#): > > “Sanctity” and “purity” have religious undertones, but in the context of public policy, it means something is inviolable. I wrote _is inviolable_, but it should read _should be inviolable_. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > and give us a way to determine whether sanctity exists around something It follows from the definition: can it be rightly violated? > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > a way to determine when sanctity is violated 1. There must be a wrong act 2. which violates some right 3. which should be inviolable, as a matter of public policy (but perhaps isn’t) > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > when violating the sanctity is wrong? Violating sanctity is wrong _per se_. ~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 13, 2023, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028/120 "2023-10-13T06:18:58Z")
> [@Babale](#): > > You have to recognize that it is sacred _to people_, and that violating that _hurts people_. How do you distinguish analysis of the church from the seal of confession, for example, in the context of institutional child molestation? I would think you’d use the same analysis in both cases. Is there a point at which you say letting this church stand causes more harm than closing it down? Is there a point at which you would say letting people worship causes more harm than abolishing religion entirely? I mean, religious persecution is very harmful. But religions can cause a lot of harm, too. Especially when there is heavy social shaming involved in a tight-knit community, i.e. certain Hasidic enclaves, Jehova’s Witnesses, ultra-orthodox Mormon communities, Scientologists, etc. ~Max [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-there-a-place-for-sanctity-in-a-modern-society/991028.md?page=7)