|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 12:40:59 GMT -5
We're already discussing the difference between gay people and incest practicers on another thread. Which is a beautiful dodge, since you've ignored the same statement several times in that thread, too. |
|
|
|
Post by Adeimantus on Aug 10, 2011 12:55:52 GMT -5
I don’t think Nickerson is committing a slippery slope at all. I think he’s talking about precedents. If we determine that the government should prohibit certain behavior, are we setting a precedent that the government has the power to potentially set such limits elsewhere? For instance, if we empowered the government to crack down on the publishing of certain kinds of literature, such as cult tracts, pornography, or racist publications, what will prevent them from using that power elsewhere? The government isn’t perfect in its judgment or its morality; the judgment and morality utilized by the government at a particular time is derived from whatever culture in the nation at large has at that time succeeded in gaining influence in the government. Hence a constitutional amendment was once ratified in which the manufacture, sale, and transportation of alcoholic beverages was banned- because at that time, there was a cultural movement against alcohol consumption that just so happened to gain the influence necessary to get such a law passed. I have, in my brief lifetime, heard everything from television, to smoking, to pants on women called an evil: it is not at all inconceivable that those things, and even more banal things, could have been outlawed had the right forces gained influence- and in fact it has happened in some places.
But the cultures of the time are constantly shifting. They are not as they were fifty years ago, and they won’t be as they are now fifty years in the future. People are always looking for new causes to support, whatever their reasons may be, and, based on what I’ve learned, they tend to look for ways to enforce their cause on others by campaigning against this or that habit, belief, or practice and attempting to compel the government to legislate their morality. It is not inconceivable that in the future the government might forbid you from teaching evolution in your school, should the right people gain the necessary influence. It is also not inconceivable that you would not be allowed to refuse to host a convention of bestialists in your convention hall, should the right people gain the necessary influence.
What I am suggested is that we need to make the government immune to the shifting norms of the time and remove from it the power to do harm based thereon, and fixate it upon a small set of responsibilities. The government needs to remove its influence entirely from legislating morality in the lives of citizens- not because there is not a moral law we ought to follow, certainly not, but because whatever policy the government may follow, it will be according to the judgment of those who influence it, and will be enacted primarily against those whose judgment led them to different beliefs. We should then recognize that people have to make their own judgments and their own choices, and respect this in everyone. In short, we should disagree with one another peaceably and take no action to force the other to submit to our own beliefs- even if we are right.
Another way to put it is that there are moral beliefs we hold which we do not think we should act upon in regard to others, and moral beliefs we hold which compel us to act upon others. For instance, I may have a moral qualm with smoking, I may believe it is an objective evil- but this does not permit or compel me to take away the right to smoke from others. On the other hand, if I encounter an attempt at murder or theft, I am absolutely permitted and compelled to fight it. Much of the evil in the world, I gather, comes from attempts to compel the former kinds of moral beliefs. The purview of the government, the moral foundation for social conventions and laws, should be the second kind of moral belief.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 10, 2011 13:14:28 GMT -5
I don’t think Nickerson is committing a slippery slope at all. I think he’s talking about precedents. If we determine that the government should prohibit certain behavior, are we setting a precedent that the government has the power to potentially set such limits elsewhere? For instance, if we empowered the government to crack down on the publishing of certain kinds of literature, such as cult tracts, pornography, or racist publications, what will prevent them from using that power elsewhere? That kind of IS a slippery slope argument, though. And therein lies the problem. The end result is the same. The "where doe it end" only holds water because of that harboured fear that we'll end up with Government control over behaviour. Since the worst thing they've expanded this law to include is discrimination against homosexuals and transgenders, it seems "where does it end?" can be answered fairly logically. It ends with discriminatory practices in public businesses. What's to stop them? Well, that's interesting. What is to stop them? And if nothing, why haven't they expanded? Honestly, this is to me a retread of the Teabagger "Where will public health care end?" Well, despite being under State sanctioned health care for four years now, I'm yet to once be told how to eat, when to exercise, or how to sleep. What stops them from stepping in? Deep questions. Speaking of questions, I'm going to retread this one: Would you be okay if it were "no blacks allowed" instead? |
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 10, 2011 17:23:30 GMT -5
If the government is getting in the job of regulating morals who is the say that laws against other unacceptable behaviors should not be made. More importantly who's gets to say what is unacceptable? Well, why don't we apply that logic to other areas of government- who gets to say that murder is immoral? Should we just end that law because the government shouldn't 'regulate morals'? |
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Aug 10, 2011 21:46:35 GMT -5
If the government is getting in the job of regulating morals who is the say that laws against other unacceptable behaviors should not be made. More importantly who's gets to say what is unacceptable? Well, why don't we apply that logic to other areas of government- who gets to say that murder is immoral? Should we just end that law because the government shouldn't 'regulate morals'? Prevention of reasonably forseable harm to non consenting parties is a basic yardstick for when governments should be involved in regulating or banning something. So murder is out, but merely "unnacceptble" behaviour falls ouit of its purview. In a perfect world at least. |
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Aug 10, 2011 21:51:04 GMT -5
Who determines harm? Is bullying someone to the point of suicide harm? Is restricting their access to shelter harm? Is preventing them from making medical decisions for themselves harm?
And no one has answered Amaranth's question. If the couple in question were African-American, would the inn owners still be justified in their denial of service?
|
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Aug 10, 2011 23:54:35 GMT -5
Well, why don't we apply that logic to other areas of government- who gets to say that murder is immoral? Should we just end that law because the government shouldn't 'regulate morals'? Prevention of reasonably forseable harm to non consenting parties is a basic yardstick for when governments should be involved in regulating or banning something. So murder is out, but merely "unnacceptble" behaviour falls ouit of its purview. In a perfect world at least. We'll if we're trying to prevent harm, then discrimination clearly comes under that banner. |
|
