T
The Bellman
Guest
Most of us tend to take freedom for granted. "It's a free country," we say, and give little thought to what we actually mean. If pressed, most of us would probably talk about things like freedom of worship, freedom to go wherever you like, freedom to hold whatever job you like. And most of us would say that that's a good thing. We're in favour of freedom, and people will say that they'd fight for their freedom, or that people have died to give us freedom.
But what do we really mean by freedom in this context? Just how free are we? Am I free to kill someone with impunity? Am I free to drive my car at a hundred miles an hour down a busy road? Am I free to have sex with whomever takes my fancy, be they willing or no? Obviously, the answer is no. We don't have complete freedom; what we have is limited freedom. In other words, we are completely free to act as we want...within certain boundaries and with certain restrictions. There are innumerable things that we are not free to do. Yet we put up with these restrictions on our freedom, despite our liking for freedom itself. Why? The answer is obvious - because we understand, acknowledge and accept that we are all better off if some freedoms are restrained. We realise that all of us are better off if everyone is not free to kill with impunity. We realise that everybody is better off if people aren't free to drive at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street. So we accept that our freedom isn't all that free. Why, then, when we don't really have freedom, do nearly all of us advocate freedom, and why are so many of us prepared to die for it?
Exactly what are we free to do? What freedoms are we happy to have curtailed? A bit of thought yields the likely answer - nearly all of us are happy to accept that we aren't free to act in a way that will harm others. Sure, I'd be more free if I could drive at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street...but I don't mind in the least losing that freedom, because it's obvious that such an act would be highly likely to harm others. I don't mind my freedom being restricted in that way, if only because I don't want other people free do drive at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street when I might be crossing it. So when we talk about freedom as something we have and wish to preserve, we are really talking about the freedom to act as we like...provided we don't harm others.
A quick check of our laws will support this. Overall, the vast majority of our laws consist of restrictions to our freedom so that we are not allowed to act in a way that might harm others. We can't kill, steal, rape, assault at will, because all of those activities harm others. Other less obvious laws such as traffic regulations, commercial law, copyright law and so forth all have, at root, the same purpose - curtailing our freedom so that we do not harm others (and 'harm others' includes harming their property). Every so often a communal discussion arises about some particular behaviour and whether or not it should, in fact, be curtailed as likely to harm another. An example of this is the discussion some years ago about the practice of some Jehovah's Witnesses of refusing blood transfusions for their children. It was suggested that in this instance, the freedom of these Jehovah's witnesses to raise their children in the way they see fit (a freedom virtually all of us would rate as pretty important) should be curtailed because they were harming their children in refusing to accept blood transfusions for them. To my knowledge, the law was amended to deny Jehovah's Witnesses the freedom to raise their children in the way they see fit in that particular regard. We (as a society) decided to restrict their freedom in a particular way...because that way harmed others.
But, of course, there are other types of laws. Laws that restrict freedom even when the exercise of that freedom would not harm others - or, at least, would not harm others in an easily quantifiable way. It's easy to say what harm would be done by allowing people the freedom to kill with impunity; it's much harder to say what harm would be done (if any) by allowing people to have homosexual relationships. It is these laws, those which restrict freedom even though that freedom would not harm others in an easily quantifiable way, which are (generally) laws 'legislating morality'. This is a curious term, so let's examine it for a moment.
Obviously, all laws legislate morality. Most religions, for example, have an injunction against murder...and our laws against murder legislate and enforce that moral precept. Similarly with stealing, rape, assault and so forth. But for all of these laws, there is ample reason for their existence beyond any religious/moral precepts. We accept them as necessary, as discussed above, because we all agree that there are some freedoms society is better off without. What I mean by 'legislating morality' is the passing of laws which legislate morality, and exist for no other reason, and for the remainder of this post I'll use the term to mean those laws exclusively.
In other words, imagine that (magically) all religious and moral laws disappeared. Nothing is "wrong" in terms of morality; there is no penalty for any action beyond that which we choose to impose ourselves. Obviously, in such a circumstance, we would still want our freedom restricted in certain ways, to allow our society to survive. We'd still want laws against murder, and theft, and assault, and rape - because we acknowledge that with them, all of us are better off. The harm that could be done with impunity if those laws were not present is obvious and quantifiable. Now, if we look at any law in the light of such a situation...would we still want it to exist? Does it prevent some freedom that would harm others in an obvious and quantifiable way? If not, it's a pretty good bet that that particular law is actually 'legislating morality' - in other words, the only reason for its existence is to force everybody to act in a way that some person(s) think is moral.
So we have established that while freedom is something we all desire, we are happy to see that freedom restricted where it is in the interests of all of us. Yet laws which legislate morality don't do that; they restrict our freedom for no reason other than that somebody thinks it's wrong for us to be free in that particular way.
I submit that laws which legislate morality are uniformly bad laws; that the only good and worthwhile laws are those which restrict our freedom when the exercise of that freedom would harm others. In this light, when considering the legalisation or illegalisation of any activity, the only question that needs to be asked is "If we are granted freedom to perform this activity, will others be harmed?" If the answer is "no", then the law is a bad one, and should not be passed or should be struck from the books.
At the moment in the western world, increasingly, this view is being taken by legislators. Laws which legislate morality are being struck down all over the place - notably laws against certain sexual conduct (such as homosexuality). While there are still many laws in exsistence which legislate morality, they are decreasing. It may be that some will remain for some time to come (perhaps indefinitely); yet it is still true that there are fewer laws of this type today than there were, say, twenty years ago. I view this as a good thing, and more; I believe that it should be viewed by anyone who is for the maximum possible freedom for each of us as a good thing. To legislate morality is to enforce the moral standards of some particular person or group of persons on the community as a whole, to their disadvantage. This, to my way of thinking, runs counter to the very basis of the (restricted) freedom that the western world holds dear.
But what do we really mean by freedom in this context? Just how free are we? Am I free to kill someone with impunity? Am I free to drive my car at a hundred miles an hour down a busy road? Am I free to have sex with whomever takes my fancy, be they willing or no? Obviously, the answer is no. We don't have complete freedom; what we have is limited freedom. In other words, we are completely free to act as we want...within certain boundaries and with certain restrictions. There are innumerable things that we are not free to do. Yet we put up with these restrictions on our freedom, despite our liking for freedom itself. Why? The answer is obvious - because we understand, acknowledge and accept that we are all better off if some freedoms are restrained. We realise that all of us are better off if everyone is not free to kill with impunity. We realise that everybody is better off if people aren't free to drive at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street. So we accept that our freedom isn't all that free. Why, then, when we don't really have freedom, do nearly all of us advocate freedom, and why are so many of us prepared to die for it?
Exactly what are we free to do? What freedoms are we happy to have curtailed? A bit of thought yields the likely answer - nearly all of us are happy to accept that we aren't free to act in a way that will harm others. Sure, I'd be more free if I could drive at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street...but I don't mind in the least losing that freedom, because it's obvious that such an act would be highly likely to harm others. I don't mind my freedom being restricted in that way, if only because I don't want other people free do drive at a hundred miles an hour down a busy street when I might be crossing it. So when we talk about freedom as something we have and wish to preserve, we are really talking about the freedom to act as we like...provided we don't harm others.
A quick check of our laws will support this. Overall, the vast majority of our laws consist of restrictions to our freedom so that we are not allowed to act in a way that might harm others. We can't kill, steal, rape, assault at will, because all of those activities harm others. Other less obvious laws such as traffic regulations, commercial law, copyright law and so forth all have, at root, the same purpose - curtailing our freedom so that we do not harm others (and 'harm others' includes harming their property). Every so often a communal discussion arises about some particular behaviour and whether or not it should, in fact, be curtailed as likely to harm another. An example of this is the discussion some years ago about the practice of some Jehovah's Witnesses of refusing blood transfusions for their children. It was suggested that in this instance, the freedom of these Jehovah's witnesses to raise their children in the way they see fit (a freedom virtually all of us would rate as pretty important) should be curtailed because they were harming their children in refusing to accept blood transfusions for them. To my knowledge, the law was amended to deny Jehovah's Witnesses the freedom to raise their children in the way they see fit in that particular regard. We (as a society) decided to restrict their freedom in a particular way...because that way harmed others.
But, of course, there are other types of laws. Laws that restrict freedom even when the exercise of that freedom would not harm others - or, at least, would not harm others in an easily quantifiable way. It's easy to say what harm would be done by allowing people the freedom to kill with impunity; it's much harder to say what harm would be done (if any) by allowing people to have homosexual relationships. It is these laws, those which restrict freedom even though that freedom would not harm others in an easily quantifiable way, which are (generally) laws 'legislating morality'. This is a curious term, so let's examine it for a moment.
Obviously, all laws legislate morality. Most religions, for example, have an injunction against murder...and our laws against murder legislate and enforce that moral precept. Similarly with stealing, rape, assault and so forth. But for all of these laws, there is ample reason for their existence beyond any religious/moral precepts. We accept them as necessary, as discussed above, because we all agree that there are some freedoms society is better off without. What I mean by 'legislating morality' is the passing of laws which legislate morality, and exist for no other reason, and for the remainder of this post I'll use the term to mean those laws exclusively.
In other words, imagine that (magically) all religious and moral laws disappeared. Nothing is "wrong" in terms of morality; there is no penalty for any action beyond that which we choose to impose ourselves. Obviously, in such a circumstance, we would still want our freedom restricted in certain ways, to allow our society to survive. We'd still want laws against murder, and theft, and assault, and rape - because we acknowledge that with them, all of us are better off. The harm that could be done with impunity if those laws were not present is obvious and quantifiable. Now, if we look at any law in the light of such a situation...would we still want it to exist? Does it prevent some freedom that would harm others in an obvious and quantifiable way? If not, it's a pretty good bet that that particular law is actually 'legislating morality' - in other words, the only reason for its existence is to force everybody to act in a way that some person(s) think is moral.
So we have established that while freedom is something we all desire, we are happy to see that freedom restricted where it is in the interests of all of us. Yet laws which legislate morality don't do that; they restrict our freedom for no reason other than that somebody thinks it's wrong for us to be free in that particular way.
I submit that laws which legislate morality are uniformly bad laws; that the only good and worthwhile laws are those which restrict our freedom when the exercise of that freedom would harm others. In this light, when considering the legalisation or illegalisation of any activity, the only question that needs to be asked is "If we are granted freedom to perform this activity, will others be harmed?" If the answer is "no", then the law is a bad one, and should not be passed or should be struck from the books.
At the moment in the western world, increasingly, this view is being taken by legislators. Laws which legislate morality are being struck down all over the place - notably laws against certain sexual conduct (such as homosexuality). While there are still many laws in exsistence which legislate morality, they are decreasing. It may be that some will remain for some time to come (perhaps indefinitely); yet it is still true that there are fewer laws of this type today than there were, say, twenty years ago. I view this as a good thing, and more; I believe that it should be viewed by anyone who is for the maximum possible freedom for each of us as a good thing. To legislate morality is to enforce the moral standards of some particular person or group of persons on the community as a whole, to their disadvantage. This, to my way of thinking, runs counter to the very basis of the (restricted) freedom that the western world holds dear.
