|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 188 responses total. |
shazbot
|
|
response 150 of 188:
| 
May 7 22:11 UTC 2002 |
My $.02 follows.
>With the freedom of print and speech comes the responsibility to uphold the
>standards of common decency. It was common law in medieval England to sever
>the hand of those who stole. In a similar way, we too have standards set by
I don't >our social system which declares that there are things that are
"taboo" and >should not be discussed in public, thus the common law of decency.
Just as >nobody ever said that one should punish a thief by cutting his hand
from his >body, noone ever stated that one should have a standard of certain
taboo >topics. However, the general population still followed the rule for
punishing >thiefs, because it was an understood rule, otherwise known as a
common law. >This brings me to my point: We should still follow the common law
of decency. >I realize that everyone wants to look at child pornography (or any
other type >of pornography, for that matter), and I realize that denying our
impulses >denys that which makes us live. But that is the way of animals. The
only thing >which separates Man from Beast is our advanced social system. No
other known >species has such intricate social workings. To deny our social
system, our >common laws, is to deny that which makes us greater than the other
lifeforms >known on Earth.
I know what will occur now. You will call me "puritan" or "Christian"
or "prude" or any of the daily multiplying adjectives for one who squelches
anything remotely related to sex. But I write this because maybe one or two
of you will respect my point of view. The "moral majority" oft spoke of does
not exist any longer, for the majority is no longer moral. Right can not be
determined from Wrong on the basis of what feels good at the moment. Don't
tell me to shut up because I have the same right of free speech that you do.
|
oval
|
|
response 151 of 188:
|
May 7 22:16 UTC 2002 |
hahahahahaha!~!!!!!
|
jmsaul
|
|
response 152 of 188:
|
May 7 22:30 UTC 2002 |
Re #150: I won't call you those things. I'll just point out that the same
right of free speech you're citing for yourself applies to people
who produce works you think transgress the "common law of decency,"
provided they don't actually harm people in the production of those
works, cross the obscenity line, etc.
I'll also suggest that there *is* no common understanding of what
should and should not be discussed, and that you might think some
things shouldn't be discussed that others think should be.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 153 of 188:
|
May 7 22:55 UTC 2002 |
Whatever has been "the common law of decency" was still invented by people
of a particular time, place, and circumstances, including their load of
customs and manners inherited from the past. There purpose has been to
have a civil and orderly society, but many parts of the "common law of
decency" have no particular bearing upon civil and orderly society. For
example, the "common law of decency" that said that women could not
show their knees when they went swimming (a lot of the common law of
decency was invented by men to control women). The most recent example
is the prior common law of decency that made it a misdemeanor to curse
in front of women and children (again directed at women - it was OK
to curse in front of men).
All things "taboo" were also invented mostly by men and imposed upon
society, sometimes in very cruel fashions. I don't hold with any
"common law of decency" that cannot withstand scrutiny for its real
and effective purpose.
My standard is what eases and facilitates civil and respectful social
interactions: behavior based in not doing to others what you would not
want others to do to you.
|
bru
|
|
response 154 of 188:
|
May 8 02:22 UTC 2002 |
I do believe there is a common level of decency, a "mathematical mean" if you
will. I also agree that that level haas slipped from time to time and
situation to situation. It re-invents itself regularly.
It is seperated by class and region. Income and education.
It is like a socuial pendulum, swinging back and forth between freedom and
restraint, liberal and conservative, left and right.
What is really confusing is when certain areas of the same social norm swing
in different ways at different times.
Look at the 1920's, 1960's. Both very liberal eras, per se. Then there are
the 1940's and 1980's, both very conservative, per se.
And certainly there are many regimes who believe knowledge is the root of the
problem. When people know to much, they lose a certain moral center. Thue
us the Nazi's burned books and look at certain art as debauchery. And they
kiled millions. The same applies to the Taliban today. They burned books
and destroyed art because it was immoral. And htey killed thousands.
I may not agree with people who want to bring homosexuality into the main
stream, but I doubt talking about it is going to make it any worse in and of
itself. Adn I know as long AS we can talk about our differences, there are
not going to be any bodies lying in the streets.
When enough people are hurt by the actions of certain people, it will go back
the other way.
|
other
|
|
response 155 of 188:
|
May 8 03:04 UTC 2002 |
Bruce, that was very nearly coherent.
But not quite...
|
brighn
|
|
response 156 of 188:
|
May 8 04:36 UTC 2002 |
#153, last paragraph. I think it's much more complicated than that, because
basing your behavior towards others on how you would like to be treated (or
not treated) assumes that your preferences and those of others are the same.
Perhaps you would not like someone to give you financial help if you were in
need, because you feel you should be able to pick yourself up... should you
then ignore the pleas of the homeless entirely? Is that conducive to a civil
society?
Instead, I feel that ethics should be based on considering the needs of others
and deciding whether satisfying those needs creates too much of a burden on
your own needs. If somebody asks me for a dollar, I don't consider whether
I'd want someone to give me a dollar in the same situation so much as I
consider whether the burden on me of giving this person a dollar is so great
that it outweighs the potential good to the person. (This is too simplistic,
too, but it gets at my point.)
Further, if you're in a position where you're acting from self-defense, then
clearly you are going to act against another in a way that you wouldn't want
them to act against you. If someone is in your house, physically threatening
you, and you are in a position to shoot them, would you set down the gun and
continue to let them abuse you? I wouldn't, and I don't think it should be
an ethical requirement that somebody do so.
In this situation, I would again consider what the person wants -- to rob me,
and perhaps to beat me -- versus what I stand to lose by not obstructing their
obtaining of "needs."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 157 of 188:
|
May 8 05:21 UTC 2002 |
That is a non-sequitar in regard to #153: In regard to the example, and
may not want another person to force money upon me even if I was
destitute, and it is consistent then to not try to force money on others
(especially if one is destitute). But I will agree that it cannot be
a personal absolute (nothing is absolute, except zero), but only a
*base* - the term I used.
|
brighn
|
|
response 158 of 188:
|
May 8 05:39 UTC 2002 |
If you want an overt example based on #153, I wouldn't mind people having anal
sex with dogs on my front lawn, does your ethic permit me to do the same on
anyone's front lawn that I choose?
If not, why not?
|
flem
|
|
response 159 of 188:
|
May 8 14:25 UTC 2002 |
One of the reasons for the formation of this country (USA) was that a sizeable
minority of people in various European countries, esp. England, were unable
to practice their religion due to the "common standard of decency" in place
at the time. When they started this country, they deliberately separated the
lawmaking process from any standard of decency, for the explicit reason of
preventing the "moral majority" from enforcing a common standard of decency.
This has generally been regarded as a pretty good idea.
|
brighn
|
|
response 160 of 188:
|
May 8 14:51 UTC 2002 |
It has been? Somebody should tell the Supreme Court.
As soon as I'm done bugering my Saint Bernard on Rane's lawn, I'm headed over
to Greg's!
|
rcurl
|
|
response 161 of 188:
|
May 8 16:51 UTC 2002 |
Re #158: what is it you do not want others to do to you, in that example?
|
brighn
|
|
response 162 of 188:
|
May 8 17:06 UTC 2002 |
#161> Nothing, that's the point. I'm saying that, because I don't mind if
people have anal sex with their dogs on my front lawn, your ethic has no
comment on the behavior, and it should therefore be permissible for a civil
society. Your basis is, "Do not do unto others what you would not have them
do unto you." Any act which I do not mind if it's done to me is not commented
on by that ethic.
Fido and I will be over this weekend, with the lube and the condoms. It'll
be great to finally meet you.
(Yes, this is an extreme example, but I have had people use that ethic as a
defense for things which *are* illegal and against the concept of a civil
society: Punching me in the arm, for instance; in response to my protests,
they say, "Hey, grow up, get a backbone, I don't care if you punch me in the
arm, so what's YOUR problem?")
|
rcurl
|
|
response 163 of 188:
|
May 8 17:53 UTC 2002 |
It seems to me that, since I don't want you to do what you plan on doing
on my lawn, I would also choose to not do it on your lawn (or anywhere
else). This is consistent with the "base" for ethical decisions for
me. That it isn't for you is a problem, to which I have to turn to
law. But the law I would espouse would be consistent with this ethic.
|
brighn
|
|
response 164 of 188:
|
May 8 20:42 UTC 2002 |
*blink* Huh what? Rane, usually your responses are more coherent than that.
I don't see how your law is anything more than what you deem to be
appropriate, as opposed to what Fred Phelps or George Bush might deem to be
appropriate. You failed to really address the issue, because if your law
really espoused your ethic, then either anything that anyone accepts as valid
is valid, or nothing that anyone rejects as invalid is valid. That is, if your
defense for making it illegal for me to have anal sex with dogs on your lawn
is that you don't want me to do it, then how can you then argue against
someone who doesn't want me to curse God in their presence?
|
jazz
|
|
response 165 of 188:
|
May 8 20:58 UTC 2002 |
Well, at least you're having safe bestiality, Paul ...
I guess I'm kind of odd when it comes to morality; I think that most
of what we call morals are really just irrational cultural prejudices, given
weight and power because we do not recognize or believe that they are
irrational, but I do also believe in a common sort of morality along the lines
of what Paul was discussing earlier, about not causing harm to others, and
about benefitting others when it isn't at too high a cost to one's self.
|
brighn
|
|
response 166 of 188:
|
May 8 23:47 UTC 2002 |
Oh, I agree. I think Rane and I are probably fairly close in agreement, my
only real point is that I find his presentation of his ethics simplistic. I
presume his ethics are probably more complicated than he presents, so I'm
probably just harassing him and should stop. ;}
|
rcurl
|
|
response 167 of 188:
|
May 9 02:38 UTC 2002 |
That's a good idea, since #164 was nearly incomprehensible. I set forward
no personal law at all, nor have I argued against....huh?
|
brighn
|
|
response 168 of 188:
|
May 9 02:44 UTC 2002 |
You said that the law would reflect your personal ethic. That's what I meant
by "personal law."
|
rcurl
|
|
response 169 of 188:
|
May 9 14:28 UTC 2002 |
I said I would espouse laws that reflect my personal ethic. That is what
everyone does.
|
flem
|
|
response 170 of 188:
|
May 9 14:38 UTC 2002 |
Not true. For example, I believe it is unethical to cheat on one's spouse,
but I would strongly oppose a law making it illegal to do so. (And yes,
brighn, I'm aware of the current unenforced laws on the subject.)
|
rcurl
|
|
response 171 of 188:
|
May 9 15:18 UTC 2002 |
I don't think it is universally unethical to "cheat" on one's spouse.
What if the two have what is called an "open marriage" in which they
agree to have other partners? Or do you mean by "cheat" only when it
is unethical? The fact that there is either no law against it, or
the law is no longer enforced, suggests that the general conclusion
is that it is not universally unethical.
By the way, to espouse a law does not necessarily mean to seek to
enact.
|
brighn
|
|
response 172 of 188:
|
May 9 15:33 UTC 2002 |
"I think this is a great idea. Let's not do it."
You're playing semantic games to back out of yet another corner, Rane. ;}
I think we've shanghai'd yet another item, so I'm letting this drop here, too.
If there's any interest in keeping it up, someone should start a new item.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 173 of 188:
|
May 9 15:40 UTC 2002 |
Why do you always cry "semantic games" just when it getting to be the
most fun?
|
senna
|
|
response 174 of 188:
|
May 9 17:29 UTC 2002 |
He's right in this case. You're worrying about the meaning of the word
"cheat," when that was not the crux of flem's argument. There's an easier
one: I believe it is unethical to promote racial discrimination and hatred
through speech. I do not support banning of such speech. Please resist the
temptation to analyze what "speech" actually means. :)
|