(July 20, 2010 at 2:28 pm)rjh4 Wrote: What does whether or not there is a "grey area" have to do with whether or not a law infringes upon anyone's personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual? A thief could certainly argue that the laws against stealing infringes upon his personal freedom and right to choose what is moral or immoral to them as an individual, right? And it seems to me the thief would have a reasonable point. Consequently, I think that in discussing pros and cons to potential or existing laws, the argument relative to "legislating morality" is weak.
The reference to a 'grey area' was what I feel puts that into the category of 'legislating morality' (your example concerning whether or not a fetus has rights points one of these 'grey areas' out nicely). The 'personal freedoms' thing is separate, i.e. 'grey area' was not in reference to 'personal freedoms'.
I knew that you would (probably) bring up the thief claiming that laws against theft infringe on his rights. Heheh. Here is the difference: The act of theft infringes upon the personal freedoms of the thief's victims. Theft, by default, has 'victims'. Legislation against actions that 'victimize' another... are the very laws that keep society afloat.
However, if a law is passed that makes it illegal to, say, eat meat on Friday... that law serves no purpose other than to force dogmatic morality upon everyone, whether they agree or not. It does nothing to prevent victimization.
Don't get me wrong, I am also against legislating "Mommy knows best" ideals, as well. Why should it be a law that I must wear a seatbelt when I drive? I do... but I do it for my own safety... not because the government is concerned for my safety. The government should not tell me what I must do to keep myself safe. It may suggest, but not force. And, once I am elected Emperor, that is how it will be.
