No, I don’t believe all laws are based on someone’s morality. I disagree. I think laws are, and should be by and large based on the protection of members of society. For example, I don’t think murder should be illegal because the bible says “thou shalt not kill”, I think murder should be illegal because it has an impact on someone who would not intend for that impact to happen to him or her. You can’t have a society if we allow everyone to take matters that involve OTHERS into their own hands. In matters that involve one’s self…i.e. consentual sex, drug use, prostitution, etc., the things we liberals like to call victimless crimes and conservatives like to refer to as “moral decay”, we prefer those things to be left to a matter of consent. My only concern regarding sexuality and placing laws thereon is about protecting those who do not consent, or do not have the ability to consent. So for me, age is arbitrary…there are 15 year old people who are capable of making that decision for themselves, and there are vulnerable adults who don’t understand, that’s the problem in my mind.
This is the argument that comes up all the time in matters sexual. There are those for example who argue that gay marriage is a “slippery slope” and pretty soon people will be able to marry their siblings, their pets and their coffee tables. The problem is, it’s applying blanket illogic rather than looking at things on a case by case basis (which is the same problem with laws about age of consent). We place laws against incest because of the betterment of society, there are severe genetic issues with inbreeding. With pets, there is no consent…an animal does not have the same capacity as humans to consent…same with coffee tables. Where laws against consentual sex can be valuable is when victimization is involved. So, when two 16 year olds have sex, it’s hairy, because if they do it in one state, it might be considered illegal, and maybe they live 5 minutes from the border of a state where it would not be illegal. And who in this case is the victim and who is the criminal?
Now if a 24 year old is having sex with a 14 year old, even if the 14 year old “consents” a 24 year old can use his/her greater age and life experience in a way that would allow him/her to exert mild mind control, or less dramatically put, “influence” someone younger and less world wary. I think the problem is there really should be “intent” in order for something to be considered a crime. I don’t think a person who just wants to have fun and smoke a joint for example, a drug which has arguably never killed anyone, which is arguably not addictive, and which is arguably less dangerous than alcohol and tobacco, both of which ARE legal, I don’t think that person really intends to break a law, but if he is assuming responsibility for his behavior, is not going to get behind the wheel of a car, is not going to force someone else to smoke with him…he does no harm to anyone but himself, and arguably not even to himself, well then, the only reason it’s a “crime” is because someone else forced their morality into the legal process.
Now I personally have never taken a hit off a joint, not because it’s illegal…if I wanted to, I’d damn well do it, because I’ve done the research, I know what the pros and cons are, and frankly, I have no need for the pros…not my thing. Now cocaine, or heroin or meth, I wouldn’t do because they are far too dangerous and the cons outweigh the pros in my mind, whereas with pot, perhaps the pros might outweigh the cons, but as I have no interest, I just choose not to do it. But I don’t stay away from any of these drugs because they’re illegal…that doesn’t enter into it.
For me, laws and my morality are about the greater good. So, with drugs, I think the concern should be public safety. Some drugs are inherently dangerous, and therefore no one should do them, it’s a public health issue…some drugs people OD on because the street quality is inconsistent and you never know what you’re going to get. Others are not dangerous at all and are still illegal. Others are legal and inherently dangerous. With alcohol for example, I’d make far harsher penalties for drinking and driving, I’d have similarly strict laws for toking and driving. And I’d set a general age of consent for usage, but would make the laws more about what makes sense on an individual basis. Some 17 year olds can drink responsibly, but there are plenty of college students in their early to mid 20s who drink themselves to death, and tons of people at all ages who get behind the wheel while drunk.
With drugs, making them illegal simply creates a black market, which drives up the price, which creates an incentive for people to form gangs for the distribution of these drugs. This leads to turf wars, gang violence, murder, etc. Same happens with anything that creates a black market, like prostitution for example. Essentially, if women are willing to make money this way, and men are willing to pay for this service, it is others’ morality that makes this an illegal activity. Then they apply revisionist history to say that women get victimized, but the problem is the black market, human slavery occurs BECAUSE this activity is illegal. Prohibition taught us that you can’t legislate peoples’ vices, because where there is demand, supply will always grow by one means or another. If we make that means legal, we can regulate it, tax it, make it safer and keep an eye on it.
I know this all seems tangetial, but it isn’t, it’s all part of the same argument. I believe laws are not a deterrent, and when laws are based on someone’s morality, rather than on the concept of “to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs, but let’s break as few as possible”, you end up with a law that is morally corrupt, and I believe in living to my own moral standards, which in 99.99% of cases aligns with the laws of man, but in the .01% that doesn’t align with my morals, I’ll choose my morals. For me, justice is about right vs. wrong, not legal vs. illegal. And people by and large don’t live to a legal standard, they live to a moral one.
And though we each have our own set of moral standards and values, there are absolutes, and to my mind those absolutes involve victimization of and/or bringing harm to others. Murder, rape, vandalism, arson, torture, burglary, thing of a nature where there is a victim and a victimizer. Not two kids screwing around, not someone toking up in his basement, not a guy going to a hooker. In the first case it becomes a crime if one person coerced another into sex. In the second case it becomes a crime if the guy gets behind the wheel of a car. In the third case it becomes a crime if the hooker was kidnapped and sold into bondage. But you can address those issues without making blanket laws that outlaw all incidences of these types of activities.
So, back to the sex ed argument, I think it’s moral to create an education system that seeks to educate on facts that we understand. Just like I didn’t have to ever take a hit off a joint as that was my choice to not do while others make the choice to take that hit, it would be my choice to give my child comprehensive sex ed, just like it would be another parents choice to give their child abstinence based sex ed. But just like a blanket law outlawing pot simply makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for someone who has the mental acuity to use it without harming himself or others (and may indeed make him less aware of all of the information he needs to have to make the smart choice), a blanket law outlawing comprehensive sex ed as a part of the regular school curriculum makes it more difficult (but not impossible) for someone who has the mental acuity to have sex without harming himself or another (but makes him less aware of all the information he need to have to make the smart choice). And the ONLY reason to make these things illegal for all, instead of using laws to protect those who do not want to be exposed to or affected by it, is because morality simply clouds reason and is forced upon those of us who don’t want it forced upon us.
In other words, it comes down to a very interesting moral quandry for me. I personally feel victimized when laws force me outside of my morality, even if it’s only theoretical…e.e I don’t want to smoke pot, but if I decided I wanted to, I’d be labeled a criminal, and that’s victimization as far as I’m concerned. So, I don’t agree that because some people don’t have a moral code that forbids murder, it becomes the same thing as someone who doesn’t have a moral code against abstinence based sex ed. Again, if you have the OPTION of not putting your kid in a learning environment where he will learn something you don’t want him to learn, then you aren’t victimized. But if you deny me the right to put my child in a learning environment where he will learn something I want him to learn, then you victimize me and my son.
Composing members:
0
Composing members:
0
