Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ptsfa.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!qantel!ptsfa!rob From: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) Newsgroups: net.women,net.motss,net.flame Subject: Re: Possible Ban on Pornography Message-ID: <903@ptsfa.UUCP> Date: Sat, 28-Sep-85 09:47:22 EDT Article-I.D.: ptsfa.903 Posted: Sat Sep 28 09:47:22 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 2-Oct-85 06:36:02 EDT References: <369@scirtp.UUCP> <1625@ihuxl.UUCP> <11317@rochester.UUCP> Reply-To: rob@ptsfa.UUCP (Rob Bernardo) Organization: Pacific Bell, San Francisco Lines: 52 Xref: watmath net.women:7575 net.motss:2116 net.flame:12124 Ken Perlow: >> > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. >What I meant by universal was "applies to everybody". Our individual >ideas about what constitutes moral actions or intentions may differ, >but it's silly to even think about such things unless we mean to >apply them beyond our own personal spheres. If you don't believe >this, then you are bound to confuse legal and moral worth. Now that Ken's clarified what he meant by "morals are universal", let's re-read his argument where he first said this. Someone else wrote: > I disagree. Laws exist precisely because morality is subjective > and cannot guarantee well-adjusted social behavior in a > heterogeneous society. The law thus form a "barebones" moral > framework, on which people are free to superimpose their own, > presumably more restrictive moral codes. It is necessary in a > free society that the law not be restrictive of individual > morality, except as necessary to preserve social order (i.e. my > morality may allow mass murder, but I must be restricted by laws > in order to prevent chaos.) > In this context, then, it is necessary to demonstrate that the > social order is threatened by the continued availability of > pornography, and that the threat would subside if same was > unavailable. And Ken replied: > I agree with your logic, but not your premise. Morality is not > necessarily subjective. For instance, I know perfectly well > that your morality *doesn't* allow mass murder. In fact, I'll > bet you'd have a hard time finding a mass murderer who thought > his acts were moral. Which is not the same as "acceptable", > "defensible", or a host of other excuses. Please don't confuse > immoral with illegal or (mercy!) ill-mannered. > > Morals are universal, and morals are for keeps. Why the hell else > even bother to have ethical principles? You can keep your own personal > code of conduct in your diary. Now, if our ideas of what is moral > clash, and you ask me what I'm going to do about it, that is > another issue altogether. Probably not much, but I certainly won't > call a cop. There are no Morals Police. Now I understand Ken to be saying this: that morals are codes of conduct one would want everyone to adhere to. And since pornography is immoral by his set of morals, he wants it unavailable to everyone. It is precisely because of this attitude ("I want you to live like I think people should live") that we have Freedom of Speech in the Bill of Rights. It protects an unpopular belief against the pressure of a conflicting belief held by the majority. It is because some people want to impose their morality on everyone that we need such legal protections. Brought to you by Super Global Mega Corp .com