Ruling against legislating morality

[Sheerin]

Not to go off on a tangent, but this is perfectly illustrated by the situation in the US. Certain "interest groups" are opposed to the recently discovered vaccine for HPV, which is responsible for about 75% of cervical cancer in women (IIRC). The vaccine is almost 100% effective. Why would they be opposed to something that will save lives? Because they think it will encourage promiscuity, and undermine their message of abstinence to high school students...  talk about being out of touch with reality

hmm another Savage Love Reader .

I honestly don't understand why people feel the need to push their morals on to other people... and with the same excuse that its for the betterment of society as a whole.
To put it bluntly, I think that most people who have problems with these sort of activities need to spend more time worrying about more pressing issues.  Society isn't going to crumble because it is now legal for Swinger clubs to exist, nor did society crumble when homosexuality was made legal, or when (in the states at least) laws against Interracial relationships was finally repealed. 

It is true that society currently has many ills.  Many of which can be attributed to our technological advancement - remember living in large urban centres is a new thing for Homo sapiens sapiens as it wasn't that long ago that our largest settlements were nothing more than camps with between 20 and 50 people, where we practiced a residential mobility strategy (if you're a fan of Binford). 

Life will evolve, as will our society norms.  Those who want things to return to how they were in the 50s would be awfully surprised to find out that all the things which happen now happened back then; the only difference is that its not hidden away.  Well that and many things have become safer and better.  If you think things were right back then, just picture yourself as a closeted gay man or lesbian who had to  live life hidden away.  Now ask your self how exactly is that better for society. 

 

[midgetcop]

If you think things were right back then, just picture yourself as a closeted gay man or lesbian who had to  live life hidden away.  Now ask your self how exactly is that better for society. 

Don't be silly. They didn't have gays back then.

{/sarcasm}

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Who gets to pay for the medical consequences of such clubs?

We all do.  So what?  We pay for the medical consequences of all sorts of irresponsible behaviour.  As usual the key point has been missed: who defines what is merely irresponsible and who defines what is illegal?  As it stands, I would guess that Canada will continue to follow the libertine vector and mistake it for liberal; meanwhile, those of you with old-fashioned indulgences such as tobacco and firearms will be S-O-L.  Canada is no more tolerant now than it was 50 years ago; the lanes have merely changed.

One shouldn't assume the breadth of acceptable behaviour is non-decreasing.  Doubtless as we learn to accommodate some values we will lose others.  The trick is to not lose the values which enable all other values.

 

[Brad Sallows]

A second point: the moral measure of values doesn't change. What changes is the degree of acceptance of what is wrong and the willingness to ignore what is right.