Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site watmath.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!djhawley From: djhawley@watmath.UUCP (David John Hawley) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Catching up Message-ID: <6304@watmath.UUCP> Date: Wed, 14-Dec-83 18:30:08 EST Article-I.D.: watmath.6304 Posted: Wed Dec 14 18:30:08 1983 Date-Received: Thu, 15-Dec-83 02:41:15 EST References: <678@qubix.UUCP>, <6384@unc.UUCP> Organization: U of Waterloo, Ontario Lines: 32 I've been puzzling over the issue of legislated morality vs "freedom" with respect to what it would be like to be on the "losing side". Recently another way of looking at this problem has suggested itself. Assuming we know can classify a controversy into terms of right/wrong, should we refrain from imposing our morality because we are afraid that we could wind up under someone else's legislated morality ? Isn't this moral cowardice ? The downside of legislated morality has already been well represented, so I won't discuss it. To change the subject somewhat, a comment on how governments give laws on a utilitarian basis: doesn't morality "work" ? If immorality affects the moral climate of our society, it will surely affect our actions towards each other. Why shouldn't it be legislated ? It seems that there is a hidden presupposition behind the arguments to the contrary; namely that morality is relative, and undecidable. I think the real issue on legislating morality vs traffic laws (a straw man if I ever saw one) is that of degree not a difference in kind. *Loving your neighbour* can be applied to legislation as well, along with teachings on respect for others, significance of human decisions and freedoms, etc. By the way, not only religions sacrifice victims. What about the sacrifice of the poor to economics, the technologically obsolete to the imperative of high-tech progress, young people to national prestige, or the unborn to freedom without responsibility ? From the flaming fingers of David Hawley