Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ut-ngp.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm
From: kjm@ut-ngp.UUCP (Ken Montgomery)
Newsgroups: net.abortion
Subject: Re: big brother
Message-ID: <967@ut-ngp.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 21-Sep-84 14:40:44 EDT
Article-I.D.: ut-ngp.967
Posted: Fri Sep 21 14:40:44 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Sep-84 04:05:21 EDT
References: <216@laidbak.UUCP> <574@oliven.UUCP>
Organization: U.Texas Computation Center, Austin, Texas
Lines: 45

>Now, before we hear a crusade against the government legislating morality,
>would someone name a single law that isn't either 
>
>        a:  based on morality of some form (drinking ages, rape, . . . )
>            That is, find a law that isn't an imposition of beliefs.

Drinking age restriction is unethical, because it imposes a restriction
on one segment of the population whose members do not all necessarily
deserve it, and who will not necessarily harm someone while drinking.
(Also, it does nothing about people above the minimum age who drink
irresponsibly.)

Laws against rape may be considered an attempt to enforce the notion of
the inviolateness of one's property, in this case one's body.  This
is NOT an imposition of morality, as the law properly acts against the
person (the rapist) who initiates the use of force against another.

To be an imposition of belief, the law would have to act against
someone who was properly innocent, someone who has not harmed or
defrauded another.  Such laws are said by some to define "victimless
crimes".  Some examples are the Texas anti-"sodomy" law, laws against
prostitution, laws against jaywalking, laws against suicide, etc.
The key common element here is that the person against whom legislative
and police force is directed has not violated the property of anyone
else.  He/she merely does not live up to the standard which someone 
else wishes to impose.

>        b:  an arbitrary standard (drive on right hand side of the road, etc.)
>            That is, imposing the belief that there should be a standard
>
>rick

What does the consistent use (for your own protection and ease of travel)
of an arbitrary standard have to do with imposing morality?  The price of
not following a standard way to drive is that you are likely to harm
someone else.  The choice which is based on morality here is to avoid
harming others.  The standard is only an implementation mechanism, and
has nothing to do with morality per se.  (Is the decision of whether to
talk TCP/IP or Decnet a moral one? :-))

--
"Shredder-of-hapless-smurfs"
Ken Montgomery
...!{ihnp4,seismo,ctvax}!ut-sally!ut-ngp!kjm  [Usenet, when working]
kjm@ut-ngp.ARPA  [for Arpanauts only]