Is there a place for "Sanctity" in a modern society?

[Max_S]

@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,

@Max_S

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