6 ms·

> designed to legislate morality Like... almost all other laws? Do you think murder is immoral? Well guess what? There's a law for that. Just because you disa

> designed to legislate morality Like... almost all other laws? Do you think murder is immoral? Well guess what? There's a law for that. Just because you disagree with the morality being legislated, you can't pretend that "legislating morality" is the problem.

chrischen 7y ago
Call me sociopath but murder is impractical in a functioning society. Outside of society, such as wars, it’s totally morally acceptable.
cameronbrown 7y ago
I think they mean: Laws codify common morals. They are not themselves morals. Pushing this underground will hurt nothing but victims in the long run. Is that moral? Of course not.
- Thorentis 7y ago
  Well it depends if you like it's moral for people to use social media for prostitution. If your code of morals thinks that shouldn't be allowed, then these laws make sense. If you disagree - and that's fine - you can't blame "legislating morality".
0xBA5ED 7y ago
My guess is "legislating morality" refers to pushing legislation based solely on moral concerns. There are other reasons to outlaw murder than just morality.
- thundergolfer 7y ago
  All those other concerns bear out as moral concerns. Much legislation is technocratic and hides its moralism, but it’s all questions of right and wrong, good and bad, at the end of the day.
  - 0xBA5ED 7y ago
    Not so. There are considerations of tangible consequences for some unconsenting third party. That's the difference. Outlawing something "because it's wrong" is different than outlawing something because it wrongs someone.
    - arnoooooo 7y ago
      There is no definition of "because it's wrong" where no one is wronged, unless you bring in religion. Still, someone can be wronged with their consent. Consent is not binary. That's why there are minimum salary laws for instance : so that there's not a competition to the bottom. When it comes to prostitution, the fact that huge numbers of prostitutes are former victims of abuse, for instance, should tell you that something is wrong. And even then, I would say that the minority who could be unambiguously considered to be doing it voluntarily is doing a disservice to women and society in general, by promoting the idea that bodies and what is most intimate can be for sale.
      - 0xBA5ED 7y ago
        We're off on a tangent now, but you don't need religion to believe a victimless act to be immoral. All I was getting at is laws are not made strictly on moral grounds (rightfully so) and perhaps that's what "legislating morality" was referring to.
  - imtringued 7y ago
    And it's mostly wrong.
Doxin 7y ago
Making murder illegal should be mainly about preventing people from being the victim of murder. Whether or not murder is moral or not shouldn't really be relevant. We've decided that people have a right to not be murdered for whatever reason. The only thing the law should then be concerned about is how to prevent murder. Using the same reasoning to outlaw prostitution is harder. Sure you could argue people have a right to not be a prostitute -- and I heartily agree with that -- but then the job of the law is to prevent people from being prostitutes against their will. All outlawing prostitution outright does is hide it from view. It doesn't help people get the rights they deserve. In fact it takes away the right to be a prostitute if you want to. The only line of arguing that prostitution should be illegal is either because we should outlaw anything we deem immoral, or because somehow concocted a right that prevents people from doing what they want to do. In my opinion the basis for any system of law ought to be that people can do what they want to. The only exceptions being when doing so infringes on the right of others. I should be free to be a prostitute. I should not be free to force other people to be prostitutes against their will. I should be free to wildly swing my arms. I should not be free to punch someone in the face. Of course everyone has their own opinion of what the law should be and so we end up with a patchwork of intentions -- let alone how the law actually gets applied. That's fine. People are free to have opinions. Either laws are written based on morality, or laws are written based on rights. You can't have both without being inconsistent.
- capitol_ 7y ago
  > prevent people from being prostitutes against their will The important part here is if you include economic factors into "against their will" or not.
  - jessaustin 7y ago
    Do those factors have the same meaning when someone would rather not be e.g. a cleaner or an orderly at a nursing home? Those jobs are physical and not so pleasant. They pay much less than prostitution. Yet, many people are so employed.
    - 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tomp 7y ago
A lot of people argue that "consensual murder" (a.k.a. euthanasia) should be legal (with the appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse). Edit: Actually I retract this comment. You bring an interesting point, and shouldn't be downvoted. I guess the argument "to prevent abuse" includes "to prevent people from exchanging their lives for money". And you could say the same for sex - people should be able to choose to have sex / be murdered / donate their organs, but shouldn't be able to exchange that for money. I guess the counterargument would be, that the exact definition of "exchange" depends on whether you're actually giving something - arguably, you're giving up your life / kidney (and most people aren't willing to give that up, regardless of whether they're being paid or not), but not necessarily giving up sex (and many people are giving it up pretty often... the only difference is, are they also getting paid for it, or not).
- stef25 7y ago
  Euthanasia doesn't fit the description of consensual murder. I'm not sure how ... I guess euthanasia is more of a medical procedure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide
  - jandrese 7y ago
    It is exactly how opponents of euthanasia frame the debate, so it is not surprising that the GP was confused.
  - brutt 7y ago
    Freezing of patient for far future is medical procedure (with very little chance of success). Euthanasia is suicide done because of necessity. Result is same in both cases — patient is dead and suffering no pain, but they are very different procedures because freezing leaves room for hope, while euthanasia doesn't.
stef25 7y ago
Let's not forget the idea that it could be possible for a female sex worker to consensually engage in her job. Not in the sense of "They'll murder my family if I don't" but just choosing to do it out of her own free will. I chatted to a prostitute in Thailand, she came from the poor North to work as a sex worker in Bangkok and she was fairly proud of the fact she was sending so much money home to her parents, living in a village where pretty much the only thing you can do is farm. She showed me a picture of the car her dad was able to buy and kept stressing "it's a 4 door!". She was a genuinely happy and fun loving girl. To me the shocking thing in this story is a man driving around in a car paid for by his daughter by fellating 300+ men per year, but not the fact this girl decided to do this for a living. > Do you think murder is immoral? The story of Armin Meiwes comes to mind, who killed and ate a man who volunteered to have done that to him. There's also the concept of consensual homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide
mlrtime 7y ago
Assisted suicide would be a better comparison. Both parties consent to the murder, should it be illegal?

chrischen 7y ago

Call me sociopath but murder is impractical in a functioning society. Outside of society, such as wars, it’s totally morally acceptable.

cameronbrown 7y ago

I think they mean: Laws codify common morals. They are not themselves morals. Pushing this underground will hurt nothing but victims in the long run. Is that moral? Of course not.

Thorentis 7y ago
Well it depends if you like it's moral for people to use social media for prostitution. If your code of morals thinks that shouldn't be allowed, then these laws make sense. If you disagree - and that's fine - you can't blame "legislating morality".

0xBA5ED 7y ago

My guess is "legislating morality" refers to pushing legislation based solely on moral concerns. There are other reasons to outlaw murder than just morality.

thundergolfer 7y ago
All those other concerns bear out as moral concerns. Much legislation is technocratic and hides its moralism, but it’s all questions of right and wrong, good and bad, at the end of the day.
- 0xBA5ED 7y ago
  Not so. There are considerations of tangible consequences for some unconsenting third party. That's the difference. Outlawing something "because it's wrong" is different than outlawing something because it wrongs someone.
  - arnoooooo 7y ago
    There is no definition of "because it's wrong" where no one is wronged, unless you bring in religion. Still, someone can be wronged with their consent. Consent is not binary. That's why there are minimum salary laws for instance : so that there's not a competition to the bottom. When it comes to prostitution, the fact that huge numbers of prostitutes are former victims of abuse, for instance, should tell you that something is wrong. And even then, I would say that the minority who could be unambiguously considered to be doing it voluntarily is doing a disservice to women and society in general, by promoting the idea that bodies and what is most intimate can be for sale.
    - 0xBA5ED 7y ago
      We're off on a tangent now, but you don't need religion to believe a victimless act to be immoral. All I was getting at is laws are not made strictly on moral grounds (rightfully so) and perhaps that's what "legislating morality" was referring to.
- imtringued 7y ago
  And it's mostly wrong.

Doxin 7y ago

Making murder illegal should be mainly about preventing people from being the victim of murder. Whether or not murder is moral or not shouldn't really be relevant. We've decided that people have a right to not be murdered for whatever reason. The only thing the law should then be concerned about is how to prevent murder. Using the same reasoning to outlaw prostitution is harder. Sure you could argue people have a right to not be a prostitute -- and I heartily agree with that -- but then the job of the law is to prevent people from being prostitutes against their will. All outlawing prostitution outright does is hide it from view. It doesn't help people get the rights they deserve. In fact it takes away the right to be a prostitute if you want to. The only line of arguing that prostitution should be illegal is either because we should outlaw anything we deem immoral, or because somehow concocted a right that prevents people from doing what they want to do. In my opinion the basis for any system of law ought to be that people can do what they want to. The only exceptions being when doing so infringes on the right of others. I should be free to be a prostitute. I should not be free to force other people to be prostitutes against their will. I should be free to wildly swing my arms. I should not be free to punch someone in the face. Of course everyone has their own opinion of what the law should be and so we end up with a patchwork of intentions -- let alone how the law actually gets applied. That's fine. People are free to have opinions. Either laws are written based on morality, or laws are written based on rights. You can't have both without being inconsistent.

capitol_ 7y ago
> prevent people from being prostitutes against their will The important part here is if you include economic factors into "against their will" or not.
- jessaustin 7y ago
  Do those factors have the same meaning when someone would rather not be e.g. a cleaner or an orderly at a nursing home? Those jobs are physical and not so pleasant. They pay much less than prostitution. Yet, many people are so employed.
  - 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tomp 7y ago

A lot of people argue that "consensual murder" (a.k.a. euthanasia) should be legal (with the appropriate safeguards to prevent abuse). Edit: Actually I retract this comment. You bring an interesting point, and shouldn't be downvoted. I guess the argument "to prevent abuse" includes "to prevent people from exchanging their lives for money". And you could say the same for sex - people should be able to choose to have sex / be murdered / donate their organs, but shouldn't be able to exchange that for money. I guess the counterargument would be, that the exact definition of "exchange" depends on whether you're actually giving something - arguably, you're giving up your life / kidney (and most people aren't willing to give that up, regardless of whether they're being paid or not), but not necessarily giving up sex (and many people are giving it up pretty often... the only difference is, are they also getting paid for it, or not).

stef25 7y ago
Euthanasia doesn't fit the description of consensual murder. I'm not sure how ... I guess euthanasia is more of a medical procedure. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide
- jandrese 7y ago
  It is exactly how opponents of euthanasia frame the debate, so it is not surprising that the GP was confused.
- brutt 7y ago
  Freezing of patient for far future is medical procedure (with very little chance of success). Euthanasia is suicide done because of necessity. Result is same in both cases — patient is dead and suffering no pain, but they are very different procedures because freezing leaves room for hope, while euthanasia doesn't.

stef25 7y ago

Let's not forget the idea that it could be possible for a female sex worker to consensually engage in her job. Not in the sense of "They'll murder my family if I don't" but just choosing to do it out of her own free will. I chatted to a prostitute in Thailand, she came from the poor North to work as a sex worker in Bangkok and she was fairly proud of the fact she was sending so much money home to her parents, living in a village where pretty much the only thing you can do is farm. She showed me a picture of the car her dad was able to buy and kept stressing "it's a 4 door!". She was a genuinely happy and fun loving girl. To me the shocking thing in this story is a man driving around in a car paid for by his daughter by fellating 300+ men per year, but not the fact this girl decided to do this for a living. > Do you think murder is immoral? The story of Armin Meiwes comes to mind, who killed and ate a man who volunteered to have done that to him. There's also the concept of consensual homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensual_homicide

mlrtime 7y ago

Assisted suicide would be a better comparison. Both parties consent to the murder, should it be illegal?