The dangers of legislating morality shouldn't have to be spelled out. Consider Sharia Law. Read The Handmaid's Tale. Do your homework... this sort of thing never leads anywhere good.
What sort of thing? This sort of thing. A proposed South Carolina law that would allow a jilted spouse to sue the other's lover. Maybe this doesn't seem like a big deal to everyone, but it raises all sorts of alarms with me. Let me be very clear; I have never cheated on anyone. Ever. I don't intend to. Ever. That said, there is no way you can convince me that my marriage should imply any legal contract between my spouse and anyone other than myself. No one has any legal obligation to respect or even recognize the contract of fidelity, if such an implied contract is even part of the marriage. To say that you can sue the person who slept with your spouse is to say that the person who slept with your spouse, as a member of society, was responsible for preserving your marriage and failed in that legal obligation, and that is patently ridiculous and inherently dangerous. Society is not responsible for the preservation of any marriage. As soon as we allow that society has a legal stake in our marriages, we allow our marriages to be legally defined and controlled by society. Your marriage is no longer a contract of partnership between you and your spouse, but a contract between you, your spouse, and the government. You are, almost literally, inviting the government into your bedroom, to ensure that the marriage is kept pure and morally sound. This isn't hyperbole. It is the logical and inevitable destination if we follow this course of legislation.
I don't know who this guy on CNN is... yet another stupid douchebag pretending to stand up for down-home values and morality to pander to an audience too easily cowed into submission, longing for order to be imposed upon them. This is some scary shit right here, and that it is presented as a welcome development by a major news source is absolutely terrifying.
4.21.2008
Legislating Morality
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
As you may remember, I'm willing to entertain any society or culture's attempts to shape or alter who and what they are by nearly any means as long as they are willing to accept the consequences. A government typically has dispute resolution as its primary purpose, hence laws and courts, therefore it is entirely arbitrary what disputes are resolved by government intervention. Granted there are addtional costs: economic costs, social costs, and costs in terms of available liberty when this does happen, as long as people are willing to accept this, there isn't a problem.
I'm a little different I suppose in that I value liberty differently than you- I'm of the opinion that almost no one really has any to begin with, so loss of it does not concern me overmuch. I personally believe that a society can basically reshape itself any which way it wants provided it is willing to deal with the result. I suppose the only problem with a situation like what you describe in your original post is that people don't fully appreciate what the potential side effects may be.
Yeah. We differ there. I believe there is inherent good in personal liberty, and that even well-meaning attempts to legislate morality will inevitably lead to an oppressed citizenry. This thing is beyond all doubt, though. This is just plain stupid and awful.
I would argue that the very purpose of government is in part to oppress the citizenry, effectively forcing them into labor towards some ultimate goal, for good or ill. A serious question in this case is how are the best interests of the nation served by this potential law? I'm thinking it has to do with this line of thinking:
The Garbage Generation
If this line of thinking is correct, then this may have some substance to it. This is a very big IF. Nonetheless, works like the above reflect pretty strongly what a large number of social conservatives believe with regards to social change and free market economics.
Post a Comment