Legislating the immoral

[SarcasmDispenser]

Do we outlaw drugs more for its social implications than we do for the physical toll it takes on those addicted to it? If someone wants to harm or kill themselves by whatever means they wish, should they be allowed that freedom? People regularly drink themselves to death and it's not the excessive alcohol we outlaw (not anymore anyway.) Instead we make laws about the resulting behaviour - domestic violence, drunk driving, etc.

Perhaps it gets sticky when X is a vice, even if it "harms" no one but the one performing it. Vices have a way negatively effecting everything around them even if you can't blame them directly. Where exactly do you start making the laws?

It gets very sticky, because if you outlaw alcohol, well we already know what happens then. You can't outlaw everything that has the ability to be destructive or harmful, you just have to hope people don't use it in that way.

 

[Charlie V]

Assume that there is an activity, X, which you believe to be immoral.

Assume further that there is no evidence that X is harmful in any discernable way to either the person performing X or anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

Now assume that there is conclusive evidence that X is physically and/or mentally harmful to the performer of X, but not to anyone else.

Should X be illegal?

I question the basic premise of the question, at least question 1.

How can something be immoral without being harmful in any discernable way to anyone?

To my way of thinking, the word "immoral" requires something be harmful to someone. Otherwise, it's not immoral. Can you give me an example of something that isn't harmful to anyone but is immoral?

To try to answer though, I don't think they should be illegal--but without knowing what "X" is, I don't want to make the blanket statement and pretend it will always apply. It may be possible to fill in the "X" with something that I'd say, "Well, sure, that should be illegal."

Charlie

 

[Iron Sun 254]

I'd like to see an example of something that was physically or mentally harmful to only the person doing it and to nobody else.

 

[Norea]

I'd like to see an example of something that was physically or mentally harmful to only the person doing it and to nobody else.

Lets think...

Eating McD's in front of you.

Smoking pot in their own place of residence.

Engaging in sexual behavior you find repulsive but only in their bedroom or somewhere else private.

Smoking in front of you since the World Health Org has verified there's no link between second-hand smoke and cancer[See PnT BS Show Season 1 and I think either Episode 3 or 5...].

Belching in your general direction.

A hairy man wearing a speedo and flip-flops, well that could cause mental damage but that's another story...

But do you get the drift? It has to be a verified damage. Subjective definitions of harm are not applicable. If you can't measure it you can't use it. It's like in rape cases, no physical evidence no conviction. We only have our capacities of our rational mind and sharp senses to make conclusions. And it's clear that first of all you cannot legislate immoral acts as much as you can legislate moral acts. Laws are based on the capacities of the society to accept permissive behavior, impermssive behavior is applicable to legal force due to that such behaviors are evident[Murder, Rape, Theft, Fraud, and etc]. But permissive behaviors causing harm are not evident and thusly exempt from legal force. Otherwise we would have a Stalinist state here in the US.

But that's just me....

-- Bridget

 

[Iron Sun 254]

So you believe that prostitution and suicide should be legalized?

 

[Norea]

Yes and yes...

Also suicide is legal by default it's just doctors or other officials cannot help you.


-- Bridget