Such a society would fail the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance test.
If there was a disease that was deadly and contagious, but only impacted a subset of the population - especially a vulnerable part of the population such as homosexual people - then by the Rawlsian Veil of Ignorance we can deduce that the right thing to do is help them out by finding treatment or a cure.
I can’t imagine such a world, because race is a pretty incoherent concept that doesn’t have much at all to do with real biology.
If you want to try a realistic variant, then I can tell you that when my wife and I had our first kid we ran some blood tests that screened both of us for potentially harmful genetic disorders that we might be carriers of. If we had been warned of any red flags, we would perhaps have had to think about adoption (or, if we had far greater resources than we do, IVF, where the individual eggs can be screened for the genetic issue). I have absolutely no issue with any of that.
You already live in a world where some groups are religions, with tax exemptions and societal deference, while others are cults and subject to FBI raids. Again, the actual guiding principle appears to be harm prevention, not sanctity.
You started this post by saying that the function of declaring things whose harm we cannot explain to be against sanctoty was incompatible with your framework. Yet these are all examples where detangling the harm is difficult, so you declare that sanctity is invoked and move on. You are doing exactly what you started this post off by saying you disagreed with.
I don’t think this privilege should extend any further than practical - IE, same as doctor-patient or attorney-client. And in many jurisdictions, it does not.
Whatever my intent, the other person’s life is still a human life. Even if they’re attacking me.
You could say my right to self defense overrides their sanctity of life. But then, it’s just like any other Harm based system, where we compare the harm caused by killing your assailant with the harm caused by allowing them to attack you. We don’t need sanctity for anything if we’re open to that sort of analysis anyways.
It absolutely rings hollow, like so many similar types of claims. Sanctity and purity are definitely still at the heart of it most of the time. Nevertheless, not all of those things arise from homophobia (that gay men have fewer genetic kids than heterosexual couples seems pretty straightforward), and in any case not everyone wants their kids to be on the front lines with respect to social changes. Cowardly, perhaps, but not entirely wrong.
I do not consider “protecting people from harms they do not understand” a valid purpose for sanctity in my moral framework. I also believe sanctity protects people from harms they do not understand. This is not a contradiction.
Are you saying you’re against “mercy killing” in every possible situation?
Well, convince me why a society where two married people who consent to sex outside the marriage is considered acceptable is worse than one in which sanctity forbids this?
Harm =!= pain. If it did, you may have had a point about your earlier suggestion of a society where free thought is banned to reduce harm. 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). There are lots of harms on the Harm/Care morality pillar other than just pain.
The fact that it does extend past practicality demonstrates where we disagree. Doctors and lawyers are ethically and often legally obligated to report if they can prevent harm. Priests, in this country, are not legally obligated and are traditionally ethically prohibited from doing so on pain of eternal damnation.
It’s a thought experiment to determine whether something is moral, also called Original Position.
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.
But it is not necessarily wrong to take an action simply because of the consequence of that action. 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.
For me. Not necessarily for you.
Your question is about modern society. My suggestion, as above, is that you are defining modern society differently than I do. For example - is modern society exclusively utilitarian? Am I not living proof that it isn’t? So why are your purely utilitarian arguments conclusive?
Maybe in your state, but in mine, thankfully, they recently passed Senate Bill 360 which will add priests to the list of mandatory reporters for sexual abuse.
(32) A clergy member, except as otherwise provided in subdivision (d) of Section 11166. As used in this article, “clergy member” means a priest, minister, rabbi, religious practitioner, or similar functionary of a church, temple, or recognized denomination or organization.
< snip >
(d) (1) Except as otherwise provided in paragraph (5), subdivision (a) does not apply to knowledge or reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect obtained by a clergy member during a penitential communication. For the purposes of this subdivision, “penitential communication” means a communication that meets all of the following requirements:
(A) Is communicated orally.
(B) Is made privately to a clergy member.
(C) Is intended by the communicant to be an act of contrition or a matter of conscience.
(D) Is intended by both parties to be confidential at the time the communication was made.
(E) Is made in the manner and context that places the clergy member specifically and strictly under a level of confidentiality that is considered inviolate by church doctrine.
(2) For purposes of this subdivision, “penitential communication” does not include any of the following activities, unless such activities take place as part of a penitential communication as defined in paragraph (1):
(A) Providing spiritual direction.
(B) Religious counseling.
(C) Individual or group therapy.
(D) Activity related to human resources or personnel management.
(E) Clergy assignment work.
(F) Communications between clergy, laity, or other members of the faith that occur outside of a penitential context.
(G) Activity relating to church administration or management.
(3) A written communication shall not qualify as a penitential communication.
(4) This subdivision shall not be construed to modify or limit the duty of a clergy member to report known or suspected child abuse or neglect when a clergy member receives information about abuse or neglect from any source other than a penitential communication. A clergy member is required to report any information obtained outside of a penitential communication even if the clergy member has also received information relating to abuse or neglect regarding the same person or incident during a penitential communication.
(5) The exception described in paragraph (1) does not apply to either of the following:
(A) A penitential communication between a clergy member and another person that is employed at the same site or facility as the clergy member.
(B) A penitential communication between a clergy member and another clergy member.
I think I am, but I haven’t put a lot of thought into that specific topic.
I never opined that a society where adultery is acceptable is worse than one where adultery is unacceptable. I’m not trying to convince you that utilitarianism is wrong or that my moral beliefs are superior. I’m trying to ascertain whether you think my opinion has no place in modern society. My experience is that this opinion - that adultery is intrinsically wrong and marriage is sacrosanct - is commonplace in modern society.
I will reserve my response to this pending my understanding of this Rawlsian experiment.
(a) Except as provided in subdivision (d), and in Section 11166.05, a mandated reporter shall make a report to an agency specified in Section 11165.9 whenever the mandated reporter, in his or her professional capacity or within the scope of his or her employment, has knowledge of or observes a child whom the mandated reporter knows or reasonably suspects has been the victim of child abuse or neglect. […]
(d)
(1)A clergy member who acquires knowledge or a reasonable suspicion of child abuse or neglect during a penitential communication is not subject to subdivision (a). For the purposes of this subdivision, “penitential communication” means a communication, intended to be in confidence, including, but not limited to, a sacramental confession, made to a clergy member who, in the course of the discipline or practice of his or her church, denomination, or organization, is authorized or accustomed to hear those communications, and under the discipline, tenets, customs, or practices of his or her church, denomination, or organization, has a duty to keep those communications secret.
