4 ms·

I think the law will always encapsulate some idea of morality. You've already suggested some places where US law restricts contracts that might seem to be betw

by nfoz 9y ago

I think the law will always encapsulate some idea of morality. You've already suggested some places where US law restricts contracts that might seem to be between consenting adults. It's a moral choice for the law to restrict you from "selling your organs, selling yourself into slavery, highly dangerous drugs etc." I think there's good reason for the law to be protective, because merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. Whether prostitution falls into this category is a question of culture/morality.

wallace_f 9y ago
>merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. I think this ie consistent with my original point: society should not allow exploitation of people who are simply trying to survive.
- nfoz 9y ago
  Yes and I agree, but I think even that is a cultural/moral judgement (libertarians would disagree I think), and what contracts should fall into the "exploitative" category is definitely cultural.
cornholio 9y ago
> Whether prostitution falls into this category is a question of culture/morality. The law is an expression of the social contract, so it's a truism to say it will be shaped by cultural norms. However, some cultural norms are so universal and beyond debate that we can move to an utilitarian perspective to see how well those universal values are protected by various policy choices. For example, if we posit human life as a right, there is no moral question on whether, say, a market of hit men should exist. Back to our regulation choices, I wanted to underline how banning a dangerous substance is a clear cut, less moral and more objective issue, because it objectively threatens life. Whereas banning prostitution is squarely into the subjective end of the scale, since there is no shared moral value that is objectively infringed. That's not to say that tough choices don't exist (recreational drugs, handguns, certain pornography) where the law must espouse moral choices, but that prostitution shouldn't be such a case. It is only treated as such as a political appeasement to the minority of voters for whom it's a major moral issue.

by nfoz 9y ago

wallace_f 9y ago

>merely allowing some contracts to be valid, will allow large power-discrepancies to effectively force people into them. I think this ie consistent with my original point: society should not allow exploitation of people who are simply trying to survive.

nfoz 9y ago
Yes and I agree, but I think even that is a cultural/moral judgement (libertarians would disagree I think), and what contracts should fall into the "exploitative" category is definitely cultural.

cornholio 9y ago

> Whether prostitution falls into this category is a question of culture/morality. The law is an expression of the social contract, so it's a truism to say it will be shaped by cultural norms. However, some cultural norms are so universal and beyond debate that we can move to an utilitarian perspective to see how well those universal values are protected by various policy choices. For example, if we posit human life as a right, there is no moral question on whether, say, a market of hit men should exist. Back to our regulation choices, I wanted to underline how banning a dangerous substance is a clear cut, less moral and more objective issue, because it objectively threatens life. Whereas banning prostitution is squarely into the subjective end of the scale, since there is no shared moral value that is objectively infringed. That's not to say that tough choices don't exist (recreational drugs, handguns, certain pornography) where the law must espouse moral choices, but that prostitution shouldn't be such a case. It is only treated as such as a political appeasement to the minority of voters for whom it's a major moral issue.