That’s completely begging the question. How can we determine whether something can be rightly violated?
Can I revoke that consent without moving? Is that different from revoking consent for sex?
I really don’t think this is a meaningful concept the way you propose it.
That’s what a moral system does. But if we take two moral systems, both of which guide people’s actions, how do we determine which to follow?
But surely you realize that this is no basis for a system of morality. If you were raised by Hitler, you might consider it “unconscionable” to allow any Jewish people to live!
You’ve got cause and effect mixed up here. You believe in a system of morality that you unquestioningly formed due to your background. Rather than examine why you think some things are unconscionable, you’ve just declared that this feeling is the source of Truth and that you’ll follow it blindly.
I do! Both the physical church and the confessional seal are important to people. Taking them away would hurt people in some way.
However, the physical church is harmless. The seal of confession leads to horrible things, like child molestation going on unchecked.
I’m not convinced that’s true. People who don’t confeds to priests commit crimes, too, they just don’t tell anyone.
The Catholic Church is guilty of covering up child abuse. They moved priests instead of removing priests, for instance. But that was based on information they had via means other than confession. Congregants complained about father X. There’s plenty of blame. And there would have been just as much blame if they didn’t practice secret confession, imho. I don’t think confession is a significant part of the problem.
Not taking away the confessional seal arguably hurts others more, because it leads to crimes being un-prosecuted. In practice, it probably won’t change much.
I hear everyone talking about harm, or harm mitigation, but I prefer well-being. If you agree that maximizing human well-being is your foundation of morality, that is subjective, but you can then make objective assessments of actions in respect to that goal. It’s much the same as chess, whose rules are completely made up, but so long as you agree to play by those rules then you can make objective assessments on whether a move is a good one or not.
If you don’t agree that human well-being is a good foundation for morality, then what do you think is better? Religions aren’t moral systems because they’re just pronouncements. Do as the holy book/clergy/supposed god says, because they say so. Without the foundational component they’re incapable of responding to novel situations.
Regarding reproductive rights, does sanctity of life not include self-sovereignty? If life is inviolable, then you can’t force someone to risk their life for another if they don’t consent to it. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. While 50 no’s and a yes means yes, 50 yes’s and a no means no.
Unless I’m misunderstanding your questions - that’s up to you and your morals. The only premise you need to accept to determine whether sanctity exists around something or not is my definition, which you asked for: Sanctity exists where something should never be violated, n.b.: as a matter of public policy.
If, for any given right, you can think of a contrived circumstance where public policy would demand the violation of that right, then sanctity doesn’t exist in your moral system. It means nothing to you. At least, not as I define it.
There is a concept in contract law that I think applies here. Meretricious clauses in contracts are void as against public policy, which is why if you have a written arrangement where you agree to provide room and board for your partner in consideration of his/her cooking, cleaning, and sex, the partner can stop having sex with you and still be entitled to room and board. Not only void but void ab initio, meaning from the beginning, sex cannot be consented to by contract as a matter of public policy. Termite inspections from the housing association are not comparable at all.
~Max
Yes, well, it’s turtles all the way down. You can’t decide one system is better than the other without already having a system to tell you which is “better”. I reject the existence of an objective standard.
Maybe, or maybe not. Millions of people grew up under Hitler’s rule. Only a very small number of them - if any - would be unable to live with themselves if they allowed any Jewish people to live. There was widespread violence and antisemitism and state-sanctioned genocide, but that is far removed from being unable to live with oneself if a single Jew lives.
I don’t think you have my position right. I do think about why things are unconscionable. I do question how and why I developed my system of morality. I do realize conscience varies by person, and the conscience of a single person even varies over time due to sensitization and desensitization. (This is why I reject the axiom that truth or knowledge is inherently good.)
I do not question whether I should do something unconscionable.
The same could be said of confederate statues. It’s not necessarily harmless just because it can’t move.
~Max
Re: sanctity of life and revoking consent to risk one’s life.
You are on vacation at the beach. You are a great swimmer, your close friend Joanne is not. You offer to teach Joanne to swim in the ocean. She hesitates and makes you promise that you won’t let her drown. You go out to the shallows and swim together. Anybody who gets in the water risks drowning, no matter how experienced or expert at swimming. Suddenly, Joanne is pulled in by a violent riptide. In a matter of seconds she is hundreds of feet offshore. She is struggling to tread water. There is no lifeguard but they do patrol. You can probably save her, but there is a chance you might get pulled into a rock or something and drown. Would it be wrong for you to retreat to the shore while Joanne drowns?
Scenario two. Same as above, except I am standing on the shoreline, witness to it all. I can’t swim at all. While calling emergency services I verbally and physically coerce you to go out there and save Joanne. Am I wrong?
Scenario three. Same as above except Joanne is your daughter.
Scenario four. Same as above except Joanne is my daughter.
~Max
Cool. Cool cool cool. If it’s up to “me and my morals,” it has no place whatsoever in the creation of public policy, which is a way of restricting other folks’ freedoms. The only place for “sanctity” in a modern society is the same place as “tastiness”: great if you think something has it, but don’t you dare yuk my yum.
Is that it, then? Debate over?
It may be so simple. But the question I asked, far upthread, is basically this: under your system of morals, should public policy of a modern society necessarily follow your morals?
Under my system of morals, the answer is no, not necessarily.
~Max
That question is backwards. It’s not, “should society follow my morals,” but, “should my attempts to shape public policy be informed by my understanding of morality and ethics?” When framed correctly, the answer is, “of course”: why on earth wouldn’t it be so?
Compare to, “Should my attempts to shape food policy be informed by my understanding of tastiness”: of course it shouldn’t, that’s stupid.
“Sanctity,” as you describe it, is equivalent to “tastiness,” and as such is a shitty basis for public policy, and not especially interesting as a topic of debate.
With that line of argument, I’m not getting at your attempts to shape public policy. I’m getting at whether sanctity has a place in modern society, when it is given that sanctity doesn’t exist under your system of morals.
You keep on making an analogy to “food policy”, so here’s one. Most people like to eat beef because they think it’s tasty. But beef isn’t terribly healthy and it’s bad for the environment. Let’s say, for the sake of argument, you think people should eat less beef. Maybe you propose lower subsidies for the beef industries or a sin tax. Your understanding of food policy here has little to do with tastiness. Tastiness is not a factor in your analysis of good public policy. Most people, however, oppose your suggestion precisely because they think beef is tasty. But for the tastiness of beef, virtually everyone would agree that people should eat significantly less beef. Does tastiness have a place in the public policy of that society, despite the fact that you personally don’t think tastiness is relevant to public policy?
With all due respect - why participate in the thread if you don’t find it interesting?
~Max
Tastiness has no place in public policy, but people’s desire to eat beef - regardless of why they want to eat beef - does.
Take Gay Marriage. The argument from sanctity against gay marriage is that allowing gay people to marry somehow sullies the institution of marriage and therefore no one should be allowed to enter a same sex marriage.
Now, you as an individual are welcome to feel this way. You’re welcome to view homosexual marriages as invalid in the eyes of your God. In that sense, sanctity still has a place in society.
But what you cannot do is impose your views on others by refusing a gay married couple services that you would offer a straight married couple, or by making gay marriage illegal.
I don’t care why they like to eat beef. Their reasons for their desires don’t have much relevance: their desire itself does.
I didn’t realize you were talking about something so thoroughly trivial and irrelevant to public policy.
Why draw the line there of all places? It makes no sense. I can reframe any argument from sanctity into an argument from desire. Any. You make this admission, and you admit all the conclusions you have been arguing against.
People think genetic modification defiles the tastiness of tomatoes. People have a strong desire to prevent the state from endorsing/allowing GMO tomatoes / to protect tomatoes from genetic modification. Due to their mistaken belief that it defiles the tastiness of the crop.
People think gay marriage defiles the sanctity of marriage. People have a strong desire to prevent the state from endorsing homosexual acts. Due to their desire to preserve the sanctity of marriage…
People think abortion violates the sanctity of life. People have a strong desire to protect unborn children from abortion. Because they believe abortion violates the sanctity of life.
People think mandatory reporting violates the sanctity of the confessional. People have a strong desire to respect the seal of confession. Because they believe it has sanctity.
People think beef is tasty and imitation meat is not. People have a strong desire for subsidies to go towards beef and not imitation meat. Because they want to subsidize tastiness.
People think churches are holy and mental health clinics are not. People have a strong desire for more subsidies to go towards churches than mental health clinics. Because they want to give money to holy causes…
Surely I’m missing something.
~Max
You completely miss the point.
If people want to avoid eating GMO food they should not be forced to, hence labeling of GMO food is good. At the same time educating people about the aafety and benefits of GMO foods is good while spreading misinformation is bad.
People who don’t want to have gay sex or mary someone of the same gender should not be forced to. They should not be able to force their preferences on others.
I could go on but surely you get the point.
Welcome to preference utilitarianism, the moral philosophy that I find most persuasive:
By that logic: If people want to avoid recognizing same sex unions as “marriages” they should not be forced to, hence different labeling of same sex unions is good.
Or insert denial of benefits instead of labeling. Or stars of David, take your pick.
Not even if the majority of people desire to force their preferences on others? Not too long ago, most Floridians were opposed to same sex marriage. That’s still the case in some localities.
~Max
They shouldn’t be forced to. If you want to call two dudes who’ve undergone a marriage ceremony “A coupla goddamn Satan-worshipping fake-marriage assholes,” you can do that. You can call them Marilyn Monroe and the Eight Cicadas, I don’t care.
What you do personally is different from what makes good public policy. That’s the distinction that seems to be eluding you.
If I’ve got a set of preferences that can be met without affecting anyone else, and you have a set of preferences that require you to learn what’s going on in my life and thwart me from meeting my preferences, we’re in conflict. My set of preferences takes precedence.
In the food examples, I consider required GMO labeling and beef subsidies to be public policies. Why are public desires valid there and not when it comes to marriage licensing or tax benefits?
~Max
This is unclear. I’ll try to respond anyway, making my best guess to your meaning explicit.
First, with marriage licensing: you’re conflating “marriage licensing” with being “forced to…recogniz[e] same sex unions as ‘marriages.’” These are not the same thing at all. What public policy says doesn’t force anything on you.
With beef subsidies:
-I know that a lot of people want to live in a world free from severe climate change, and I also know that a lot of people want lower taxes.
-I know that these desires will be met by lowering beef subsidies.
-People are free to call beef subsidies by any name they like, just like they’re free to call same-sex marriage by any name they like. They’re free to “not recognize” them, whatever that means. I really can’t tell how you think they’re analogous.