From: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!ucbcad:tektronix!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-a!steve
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: The basis for laws in our culture.
Article-I.D.: dadla-a.316
Posted: Tue Mar 29 13:34:08 1983
Received: Thu Mar 31 03:14:59 1983

It's time to stir up the hornets again.

This discussion is going to be a little outside of religion, but stay
with me - we'll get back to it.

My question: What is the role of morality and ethics in the making
of the law-of-the-land.

My answer: None at all.

My contention: Laws are (and ALWAYS have been, right back to the 10
commandments) based on pragmatism, not on morality.

Now, right after I put on my asbestos jacket (there, now I got it on)
I will present an example:

MURDER - I happen to believe that killing another human being is
immoral under almost all circumstances. For the sake of argument let
us assume that "THOU SHALT NOT KILL" is in fact a moral imperative.
Nonetheless, "killing another human being" does not equate to "murder".
There are at least three cases in which a member of our society can
kill a human being without it being murder: Warfare, defending yourself
against violent crime, capital punishment.


Now, without discussing the morality of killing in warfare or in self-defense,
I would like to present my rationale for this difference: The law against
Murder is there in order to preserve the tranquility of the society.
The laws of a society are formed for the purely pragmatic purpose of
maintaining the order of the society and the safety of the members
of that society. When one member of a society commits a negative
act against another member of that society they forfeit protection of
that society: Killing an enemy soldier in wartime prevents that soldier
from destroying the society; killing in self-defense is against a
member of the society who is trying to kill you; capital punishment
is meted against those caught and convicted of extreme offenses against
members of the society.

Let's consider two other cases: Traffic laws and tax laws. Most people
would not consider running a stop-sign IMMORAL (though maybe stupid) -
but laws against it are necessary to protect the members of the society
from each other. Likewise tax-laws: now I don't like the tax burden
I have any more than anyone else - and if I have a chance to trim the
taxes I pay I take it. I think most people do not consider a small
amount of prevarication on their taxes to be immoral - but obviously
it must be illegal. If it were not no-one would pay their taxes and
our government would topple.

The point is this: Acts are made illegal not because they are immoral,
but rather because they are destabilizing to the society.

Consider how this applies to some other acts: Drug use is commonly
called a victimless crime and many do not consider it immoral (I don't
know about YOU folks, but I have been known to take a toke now and again).
It is none-the-less illegal because in the past when it was legal it
harmed the society.

(Anyone doubting this should read a very chilling article called "Mothers
need not fear" in the back of "The cultivators book of marijuana" -
published in Eugene Oregon. Before the turn of this century, there
were what is known as "baby's friends" - syrups used by mothers to
calm their children. What most mothers did not know was that they
were loaded with Morphine or Codeine or Heroin - and the babies
soon became addicted to the stuff, often resulting in their ultimate
deaths.)

Public nudity is a very interesting case: It may or may not be legal
depending on where you are and what you are doing when you are nude!
In fact, the basis for this double standard is quite pragmatic: The
effect of a nude woman at 5th and Broadway in NY could cost someone
their life in a car accident. The same woman at a nude beach will have
no negative effects on anyone.

THEREFORE: An act should be illegal if-and-only-if common occurrence
of the act would destabilize the society.

An act which many consider moral but which would be destabilizing should
be illegal.
An act which many consider immoral but which is not destabilizing should
be left to private choice - it is not a matter for the law.

Now is where we get back to religion: This is the reason for the separation
of church and state; and why the mere fact that all the christians out
there consider something immoral is irrelevant to whether there should
be a law against it. The law is not concerned with morality.


Post script: It has been years since I read the bible, so I am not sure
I can remember all of the commandments, and certainly not in order. I did
at one time consider all of them, and came up with pragmatic reasons for
all of them:

THOU SHALT NOT KILL. However, consider the Hebrews in wartime. Consult
my discussion of murder above.

THOU SHALT NOT COMMIT ADULTERY. This is generally considered to be a
moral imperative to follow the convention of life-long monogamous
marriage. Consider: A society that follows this will have no venereal
disease! (This is the same reason the Hebrews did not eat swine -
they were therefore not inflicted with trichinosis.)

THOU SHALT NOT STEAL. COVET NOT THY NEIGHBORS WIFE, NOR HIS etc.
Well, I think these two are fairly obvious.

HONOR THY FATHER AND MOTHER. My understanding is that this was not
intended for young children to their parents, but rather so that
the old people of the society were cared for by their grown children.
Consider the destabilizing effects on the society if the old people
are abandoned to starve. (Did someone mention Social Security?)

THOU SHALT HONOR THE LORD THY GOD etc. THOU SHALT MAKE NO GRAVEN IMAGES.
Well, the Hebrews lived in a theocracy. Violations of these laws therefore
weakened the power of the priesthood - the government. Surely
this would impact the stability of the culture!

I don't remember the others - this is seven of them.

The point of all this is: The laws have to be considered in terms of the
culture they existed in. If the context changes, they have to be
reinterpreted - or discarded entirely.

Consider my favorite case: Adultery. There have been major advances in
birth-control and disease treatment. (Herpes to the contrary; it is a
problem now but won't be within 20 years. They are experimenting with a
vaccine for it now - and that's good enough to remove it as a problem.)
Given that venereal disease can be controlled and is no longer a threat to
the culture, this one must be re-examined - and indeed has spontaneously
been re-examined within our culture in the last 20 years. I
would contend that premarital sex is no longer a problem - but that
extra-marital sex probably still is! Thus I do not condemn the former, but
do the latter.


Well, I have my asbestos flack-jacket on and anxiously await the flood
of soul-cleaning holy flame about to descend on my poor body.

Don't quote the bible to me - I don't believe in it and don't consider
it a valid source of morality or anything else. Prove your contentions
with logic and thought, not jingoism; or don't bother to write.


	Steve Den Beste
	Tektronix Logic Analyzers
	[decvax|ucbvax]!teklabs!tekmdp!dadla!dadla-a!steve