Okay, I've resisted this long enough.
I want to use this section for what I am hoping will be an intelligent, calm, good-natured exchange of ideas and opinions. If it ever goes beyond that, I'll just get rid of it altogether 'cause the last thing I need are more headaches in my life...
Having said that, I was thinking about laws today. Specifically, laws in a democratic political system.
It seems to me that the biggest obstacle in understanding the idea behind 'laws' is the inherent human tendency to let their emotions rule everything.
But it seems to me that the reason democracy works as well as it does (at its core anyway) and that laws work as well as they do (in theory) is that they are not based on emotions. They're based on objective facts. When objectivity is discarded in favor of an emotional viewpoint, both democracy and laws become less and less effective.
Bear with me on this...
In a democratic system, you are 'free'. Theoretically, your freedoms are limited only by the caveat that you may not interfere with someone ELSE'S freedoms.
So, in essence, there really should be only ONE law in a democratic society: You can do whatever you want so long as it doesn't LITERALLY interfere with someone else's freedoms.
In other words, you have the freedom to buy any kind of car you want. But if you steal someone's car, you have interfered with their right to own something that they paid for. Thus, you have broken the law.
"Well DUH" I can almost hear you saying... but this leaves me to ask the question: Do we punish someone for stealing because stealing is 'EVIL'? I say no. We punish someone for stealing because it interferes with someone else's freedoms - and that's against the law. 'Good' and 'evil' are subjective terms... we may have a general consensus on what they mean, but when you are dealing with a democracy - which by nature allows for the freedom to hold many different viewpoints - terms like 'right' and 'wrong' and 'good' and 'evil' become HIGHLY subjective and open to interpretation and, consequently, a stumbling-block for effectively governing and upholding laws.
Maybe there's something I'm missing - but that's what I've been thinking about.
I'd love to hear your thoughts on the matter.
4 comments:
Steve is much better at waxing philosophical than I. But, here's something to think on. The chief end of man is to:
a. glorify God and enjoy Him forever or
b. gain as much personal freedom to enjoy the here and now as much as possible.
That's all fine, but the minute you bring God into the equation as a basis for governing law, it ceases to be a democracy and - at it's core - becomes a theocracy...
I know the argument has always been "But our founding fathers were Christians", which is - historically - true, but they established a system of
democracy that was objective and allowed for ANY religion to exist within it harmoniously because the
government itself remained unbiased. They may have used terms like "god" and "creator" in their wording at the time, but I believe that had more to do with the vernacular of the times.
So - unless I'm missing something - your position works on a personal level but not on a national level.
Which, again, brings us back to the notion that 'good' and 'evil' can never be established by a governmental body, but 'legal' and 'illegal' CAN.
Thoughts?
Truthfully, I don't care if our founding fathers were abject pagans. And I'm not looking to argue for a Theocracy. You're arguing that:
there really should be only ONE law in a democratic society: You can do whatever you want so long as it doesn't LITERALLY interfere with someone else's freedoms.
I'm saying that it's not a good argument from a practical level. What makes personal freedom the end all in any kind of society?
Let's say I like to have sex with 13 year old boys and they like it, too. So we have 2 consenting people. How dare you impose your morality on my freedom of sexual expression by saying only those over the age of 18 can have legal sex.
Morality plays a part in societal norms and societal laws. Good and evil, right and wrong are not subjective terms for the masses to ponder and theorize over. (I don't always like everyone's morality and I'm a borderline Libertarian, myself, but, morality matters.)
And how do we correctly define morality or personal freedom? The correct definition is not abstract nor is it just a part of our happy imaginations. There is an answer and only one.
And I go back to:
The chief end of man is to:
a. glorify God and enjoy Him forever or
b. gain as much personal freedom to enjoy the here and now as much as possible.
You bring up an excellent point, but you're still treading into subjective waters with your example...
The 'age of consent' varies widely in many societies - including this one.
It wasn't that long ago in American history when 'men' and 'women' would get married in their early teens and that was considered very normal and acceptable.
I would argue that - in today's society - you are, in fact, interfering with someone else's rights by (ahem) 'being with' a 13-year-old because, by law, a 13-year-old is still under the responsibility of their parents - you are, therefor, interfering the the parents' rights to raise their child.
There are, in fact, legal contingencies in which a minor can legally seperate from their parents and live as adults.
The way we define adulthood is largely based on where we see 'maturity' develop in the 'average' person... but the fact is, I know some teenages who are more intelligent and intellectually aware than people in their thirties.
So, once again, the reasons for not allowing 13 year olds to behave as adults has less to do with any society's 'morality' as it does the practical application of observable patterns. Teenagers tend to be irresponsible before reaching a certain level of maturity, so giving them the same rights as adults is impractical... thus, we as a democratic society, lay down laws not only facilitate responsible personal behavior among individuals, but responsible parenting (i.e., until your child is 18, you are 'responsible' for them). The goal, therefor, remains the same: laws exist to ensure that freedoms are protected.
I would also put forth the argument that 'society' and 'government' are two different entities with two different goals... but that's a whole other debate...
Understand that my arguments sometimes have nothing to do with my personal feelings (if my personal feelings dictated how the world was run, you'd ALL be in trouble) - hearing other sides to an argument is ultimately the goal here as a way to challange people to think in ways they might not have otherwise, and to do that someone's gotta play devil's advocate.
But then, that takes us full circle to my original argument: My personal feelings should not dictate law. Law should be dictated as objectively as possible.
Post a Comment