Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site unc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!duke!mcnc!tim@unc.UUCP (Tim Maroney)
From: tim@unc.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Catching Up
Message-ID: <6436@unc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 17-Dec-83 23:47:44 EST
Article-I.D.: unc.6436
Posted: Sat Dec 17 23:47:44 1983
Date-Received: Tue, 27-Dec-83 03:19:59 EST
References: <4447@umcp-cs.UUCP>
Organization: CS Dept., U. of N. Carolina at Chapel Hill
Lines: 29

[ from Pam Troy ]

Both Liz Allen and Paul Torek debunk the argument that morality can't be
legislated while ignoring the point I was trying to make.  I will now try to
repeat it as simply as I can.

Murder and theft are immoral.  A person who contemplates murder or theft is
immoral.  Murder and theft are also illegal, not because they are immoral
but because (one more time!) a society which allowed these things to go
unchecked would not function.  (Liz Allen says that she knows of societies
which allow these things to go on unchecked, but she doesn't give us any
details, and I would be very interested in hearing about such societies, if
they indeed exist.)  There are, no doubt, people in our society who are
restrained from committing theft and murder only by the fact that they would
be punished if they did so.  Do you consider these people moral, simply
because they refrain from an immoral act out of fear?  I should hope not.
It is not in our power to force people to be moral, only to restrain them
from injuring others.

Liz and Paul completely ignored the question I asked in my original article,
a question I wish they would at least try to answer.  If I were browbeaten
into adopting a "Christian" lifestyle, would that make me moral, even if my
convictions about sex and religion remained unaltered?  If not, then what is
the purpose of attempting to legislate morality?

Pamela Troy
--
Tim Maroney, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
duke!unc!tim (USENET), tim.unc@csnet-relay (ARPA)