NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #27/NN_1992_27.iso/spool/alt/rushlim/9904

Text File | 1992-11-17 | 2.7 KB | 48 lines

Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!kronos.arc.nasa.gov!iscnvx!news
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: Religious Right
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (News)
Organization: Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 92 23:08:52 GMT
Lines: 37

In <[e-mail]>, John Rickert writes:

>   Tim Irvin apparently argues that people should be allowed to do
>whatever they want, provided they don't hurt others, (or presumably
>do not use fraud).  This is precisely the position taken by Andre Marrou,
>and I can get a reference if you like.  But you're forgetting something:
>to say that such and such "should" be allowed is to advance a moral
>position.  It is just as moralistic as a morality that calls for
>prohibition of an action.  Permissions and prohibitions differ in
>content but not in the _kind_ of positions they are.  Again, it is
>not a question whether law will reflect morality, but rather what
>morality the law will reflect.

   A bit of a stretch, don't you think?  I am quite aware of Mr. Marrou's
position and I agree with it.  So far, you're right on target.  According to
*your* definition, *everything* we do has moral overtones.  You almost make it
sound like I'm making a moral judgment when I choose to go to Burger King
instead of McDonald's.  The target is starting to move away now.
   You seem to be defining morality as the set of all beliefs, not just the
set of beliefs to which one attaches definite right and wrong.  This nation was
founded as a constitutional republic with very limited powers.  Also, anything
which is not written into law is legal (we have a constitutional clause which
prohibits ex post facto laws).  In this case, permission to act in a certain
way is granted because of a *lack of* a law prohibiting it--NOT because of a
law which expressly condones, permits, or even encourages it.  Is the lack of
a law against doing X the same as making a moral judgment in support of X?
   If you wish to define my belief--that I have no right to tell other people
how to act as long as no rights are violated--as a moral judgment in and of
itself, fine.  Just remember that I make no laws based solely on that judgment
itself.  And even if I *do* make a moral judgment about an activity, that
doesn't mean there should be a law about it.  Note the difference--EVERYONE
makes moral judgments--most of us do it every day.  However, some of don't
think that we have the moral authority to impose our judgments on others.

Tim Irvin
***************************************************************************
"Dammit, Jim!  I'm a programmer, not a doctor!"