agree / disagree

[bryantm3]

"the government has no business regulating morality unless an individual's actions directly affect the physical wellbeing of another human being"

you can agree or disagree, or be somewhere in between, but i thought this would be an interesting topic starter.

i agree, but i feel like it should be "in most cases" instead of a rule— there are certain examples wherein noone is physically harmed, but it would be unacceptable.

[Professor]

In my opinion, morals are more personal, and morays are the socialized collective of a felt sense of morality in a group--and our government has a hard time juggling the two. If you start with boiling water and add roasted bones and some celery..... and reduce... you will eventually make demi glace... which as we all know, is the basic ingredient for human kindness and love. Don't kill, don't steal, don't harm another's _______..... those things are the basics, the simplest reduction of all the shit we believe culturally. The government's roll, in my opinion, is to help define the gray area... things like intellectual property, and online money scams. It's still stealing, but nothing tangible was actually taken. The government provides us with consequences for actions--the problem is that we (the US and many others) are becoming or have been for a long time, a multicultural society. So it's hard for one group to lead over a group with many different priorities of offense. In some cultures, rape is more tolerated or, let's say, ignored. Whereas here, it is not tolerated... but even in that intolerance, if a male is in charge of the crime, he will have a different point of view than a female with the same tasks. A female in the US STILL has to be the one on trial in a rape case. So it's never really that cut and dry. We'd like to think so, but not really. White people still have privilege here. Racism still exists, hate still exists.. but hate crimes are illegal. I believe it is impossible to govern based on morality as long as we all have different senses of morals. The other issue, is that even if we said.. "DO OVER" and we reset the rules, and then sent out a survey of what we'd each like to see as our government, only a fraction of the people would actually participate in it. We will never actually make 100% of the people happy.

Bottom line--it's really hard to lead people, which is why so many of our presidents are not actually leaders.

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

Question's too broad. Too much grey matter. We could be here forever.

AND, let us not forget the word scapegoat. There's a reason this word exists, it's not something fictional.

AND 3rd, I'll probably regret saying this as I've never been let down using it as a barometer of sorts: Avoid in every way possible anyone who uses the phrase, "There are no such thing as victims."

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

"the government has no business regulating morality unless an individual's actions directly affect the physical wellbeing of another human being"

Agree with the general principle. There might well be examples where I would make an exception, but nothing springs to mind right now.

I suppose quite a lot hinges on what you mean by "directly affect". For instance, the government upholds copyright law. It could be argued that that's kind of regulating morality - or at least fairness. In that instance, behaviour is being regulated, even though actions of the illegal downloader are not quite "directly" affecting the physical wellbeing of another human being. Maybe that's a bad example.

It also hinges on what counts as morality. Is the banning of certain drugs a moral issue? It might be a safety/welfare/exploitation issue, but isn't that ultimately about morality? Ditto the illegality or regulation of prostitution or pornography.

[stimpee]

I'll agree if you agree to check out TeemuP's new mix:
http://www.borndirty.org/forums/showthread.php?t=17471

*shameless plugging*

[jOHN rODRIGUEZ]

They Live In the Moon. Damn, beat me again in the quick and to the point. Says it all.

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Deckard

Agree with the general principle. There might well be examples where I would make an exception, but nothing springs to mind right now.

I suppose quite a lot hinges on what you mean by "directly affect". For instance, the government upholds copyright law. It could be argued that that's kind of regulating morality - or at least fairness. In that instance, behaviour is being regulated, even though actions of the illegal downloader are not quite "directly" affecting the physical wellbeing of another human being. Maybe that's a bad example.

It also hinges on what counts as morality. Is the banning of certain drugs a moral issue? It might be a safety/welfare/exploitation issue, but isn't that ultimately about morality? Ditto the illegality or regulation of prostitution or pornography.

i suppose those are economic protections— i wasn't really going for the economic side of the equation.

the two exceptions i was thinking of when i made the post were the FCC and prostitution. the FCC to control what can be *publicly* seen over radio and tv to prevent psychological trauma in children and for the right to not be exposed to those images.

to me, drugs should only be banned when they create a risk to those around them or an immediate death risk for the person using them— so, for example, marijuana and lsd would probably be legal, while crack cocaine and heroin would be illegal.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

i suppose those are economic protections— i wasn't really going for the economic side of the equation.

the two exceptions i was thinking of when i made the post were the FCC and prostitution. the FCC to control what can be *publicly* seen over radio and tv to prevent psychological trauma in children and for the right to not be exposed to those images.

to me, drugs should only be banned when they create a risk to those around them or an immediate death risk for the person using them— so, for example, marijuana and lsd would probably be legal, while crack cocaine and heroin would be illegal.

Yeah I wasn't convinced by the economic one either.

The point I was making concerning drugs - or rather the question I was asking - is, aren't the issues of regulation/prohibition more about health and safety (and possibly economic activity/productiveness) rather than morality? I think they are - unless we expand it to declare that all the decisions a government makes concerning safety and welfare are ultimately a reflection of the state having a 'moral' responsibility to protect its citizens. Which seems to me a somewhat looser sense of morality than the one you intended. Is any top-down handbrake on personal liberty for personal safety (or economic advantage or social cohesion) ultimately a moral pronouncement?

From what I know of the FCC, yes it seems to me a more straightforward example of almost puritanical morality for its own sake. I get that it's obviously about protecting children - partly giving parents the freedom to tackle sensitive subjects in their own time rather than having it forced upon them - but it goes further than just whispering 'won't anyone think of the children.' What about adults? Perhaps the FCC would insist that it's only being pragmatic - that it's saving American adults from the depravity than might otherwise consume them if they were exposed to too much sex and violence (but, in the US it seems, mostly sex and nudity - which is telling). Perhaps they will insist that this is - again - a welfare issue, a safeguard against desensitization... addiction... But have you noticed how discussions around FCC decisions are very rarely if ever framed in the language of psychology? There's little meaningful discussion about addiction or the psychosocial effects of normalization. It's the language of morality. "Crude". "Lewd". "Disgust". "Filth". Or euphemisms like "inappropriate" (ok enough about jOHN's private life). Maybe morality is often how we're sold unpopular but pragmatic decisions?

[bryantm3]

there is an argument about not exposing children to that type of material. i remember several instances when i was a child when i saw something i wasn't supposed to see— scenes of intense violence or sex— that upset me for weeks and ultimately probably changed the way that i view the world. kids are a lot more sensitive than you would think.

[Deckard]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

there is an argument about not exposing children to that type of material. i remember several instances when i was a child when i saw something i wasn't supposed to see— scenes of intense violence or sex— that upset me for weeks and ultimately probably changed the way that i view the world. kids are a lot more sensitive than you would think.

Oh I'm not doubting it.

They can also be highly sensitive to the subject of death.