Deja NON Vu: Someone Was Imprudent Enough to Mention It

[Sean]

* demonstrating proper use of sic

[Rick]

Joel Feinberg's name keeps coming up the more I search this subject.

Ask him...

[Andrew D]

Yes, we regulate society based on judgments, moral and otherwise.

But how do we arrive at those judgments? And whose judgments are they?

There is not [sic] intellectually honest rationale ....

Am I the only one who considers that a serious problem?

I can go into a bar and drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol. And I can go home from that bar without any problem with society's penal mechanisms. (Assuming that I do not drive.)

And I can do the same thing the next day. And the next. And week after week and month after month and year after year.

I can drink myself into the grave if I want to (or if I can't help myself). And the law will do nothing to stop me.

But if I shoot some heroin into my veins once -- not every day, just once -- I am a criminal.

What objective moral reasoning justifies that pair of results?

This is the terrible problem for many of society's prohibitions: The people who support them cannot justify them. And they know it.

[Gob]

This is the terrible problem for many of society's prohibitions: The people who support them cannot justify them. And they know it.

And we know it. Did anyone doubt this?

[Andrew D]

So you do not consider the existence of prohibitions which you admit cannot be justified by those who support them to be a problem?

[Rick]

So you do not consider the existence of prohibitions which you admit cannot be justified by those who support them to be a problem?

Go ahead Andrew ignore who you will.

Pontificate to the ends of the the Earth.

You are no better than anyone else when it comes to this crap.

Answer your own question, after all that's the only one you'll accept anyway...

[Andrew D]

I am not one who puts people (or claims to put people) on ignore. That is others' fetish.

As to answering my own question, OK.

The question is whether we ought to continue prohibitions which cannot be justified on objective grounds.

My answer is ... drum roll please ...

No.

Let's just stop doing it.

Let's just stop making it a crime for someone to shoot heroin into her or his veins, even though that person may perfectly lawfully drink her- or himself into an early grave.

Let's just stop making perfectly legal consensual sex between adults turn into a crime if one consenting adult pays the other.

Let's just stop making it a crime for a woman to walk down the street with her nipples exposed, even though a man is perfectly free to do the same thing.

Let's just stop allowing one couple to get married but prohibiting another couple from getting married based on the genital configurations of the people involved.

Let's just stop.

Answer enough for you?

[Gob]

Ok, off you go. Let us know how you get on.

[Rick]

Sue , as Andrew has pointed out more than once, you have a grasp of the issue.

What is the answer?

Or better still, Andrew I throw up my hands, what is the answer?

Be aware a simple "there is no justification" ain't gonna buy it...

No that is not, shoulda gone back and read that one...

[Andrew D]

This is to Gob; I was drafting it before keld feldspar's latest posting.

Off who goes where?

Or is this still part of the seemingly endless attempt to make this about me rather than about the principle at stake -- the issue which has been quite clearly stated?

If you are still trying to make this about me, you might want to bear something in mind: In order to want to walk naked down the street, one must want to walk down the street at all.

As I have repeatedly posted, I don't get out much. My walking in public view consists mostly of my walking on my driveway either to one of my cars or to my mailbox. And, at the other end of the trip, from my parking space to the store.

So if you want to keep trying to make this about me, you won't find much there.

But if you want to address the actual issue -- if you want to say something about why a person ought or ought not to be prohibited from going naked in public -- I'll look forward to your contribution.

[Andrew D]

Be aware a simple "there is no justification" ain't gonna buy it...

It should.

An essential attribute of any free society is that those who support a prohibition -- any prohibition -- bear the burden of justifying it.

Would you like to live in a society in which you have to justify your choice to read Kant's Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals? And if you cannot justify your choice to the government's satisfaction, you go to prison?

Would you like to live in a society in which if you and your spouse chose to engage in oral sex, you could be jailed?

Would you like to live in a society in which if your skin happens to be dark, you cannot lawfully drink from waterfountains which are open to the light-skinned?

Those are the societies to which placing the burden on the opponents of prohibitions opens the door. Are those the societies which you want?

[Rick]

Oh I see yer allowed to throw about diversions but not anyone else.

Maybe one day you'll be able to walk around nekkid, after all we can all drink from the same fountain now...

[Sean]

Wow Andrew! We've come a long way from your insisting that you should be allowed to show Andrew Jr to the world whether they like it or not!

[Gob]

This is to Gob; I was drafting it before keld feldspar's latest posting.

Off who goes where?

I was being sarcastic Andrew. If changing these things, most of which I agree with, was as simple as "lets stop', then the world would be a better place, it isn't though.

So tell me how this "let's stop" would work in your opinion. You've already stated that other people have different opinions, so why woud they "just stop"?

[Andrew D]

How would we get people to stop? I don't know. But surely an essential step in that is making it clear that people ought to stop.

[Andrew D]

Wow Andrew! We've come a long way from your insisting that you should be allowed to show Andrew Jr to the world whether they like it or not!

From the specific to the general is not such a long distance ....

[Sue U]

No Sue, Andrew started this thread about one issue and one issue alone. The issue was public nudity.

(Personally, I think Sean's argument is tantamount to blaming rape victims for wearing a skirt "too short.")

That, by the way, was insulting, misplaced and completely false.
Please explain (if you can) how the fuck you got that from my post?. I honestly thought you had more intelligence than that!

I direct your attention to the following quote (emphasis added):

I disagree with this. Hypothetical I know, but I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statisitics if women walked around nude?

Can you see the parallel?

"I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statistics if women walked around in short skirts?"
"I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statistics if women walked around with ankles exposed?"
"I wonder what would happen to rape and sexual assault statistics if women walked around in public?"

Rape and sexual assault are not crimes of women's clothing (or lack of it). To suggest that they are is to excuse the rapist and blame the victim for his actions.

The issue is quite simply, what is the justification for, and proper role of the state in enforcing, rules that control your, and other people's, behavior?

Abridged.

That is how we have decided to live in society. Thesee rules and enforcement are not immutable, they are subject to review and change. If sufficient need for change is felt, then by political activism and protest we can change the rules. I would have thought that this was so obvious no one would need state it, the side show of “public nudity” has detracted from what is a simple point.

"We do it this way because that's how we've always done it, and we'll change it when we feel like it by protesting and activism" is not a particularly sound basis for pubic policy or ensuring personal liberty.

Would you agree that the first principle of any free society is that there should be a presumption in favor of individual liberty and against governmental coercion? If this is the principle, then all restrictions on any activity (whether it be nudity, alcohol consumption, drug use or Sunday sales of toilet paper) must be justified by demonstration of some societal harm resulting from that activity and tailored as narrowly as possible to reach only that specific harm, without any more infringement on personal liberty than absolutely necessary to accomplish that result.

Keld Feldspar referred above to Joel Feinberg, a highly regarded and influential philosopher in this area. From Prof. Feinberg's obit in the NYT:

As Jules L. Coleman, another former student who is a professor of philosophy at Yale University Law School, put it, ''Feinberg defends the view that the state's power can be employed against individuals primarily only if their actions are likely to be harmful to others and not, for example, if they are merely offensive or morally repugnant to a powerful majority.''

That is the issue in a nutshell.

[Gob]

How would we get people to stop? I don't know. But surely an essential step in that is making it clear that people ought to stop.

Steve and Edi used to say that all the time at the CSB. Steve actually believe if he posted enough bad news at the CSB, people would all come to their senses and .....something.....would happen.

[loCAtek]

Yes, we regulate society based on judgments, moral and otherwise.

But how do we arrive at those judgments? And whose judgments are they?

There is not [sic] intellectually honest rationale ....

Am I the only one who considers that a serious problem?

I can go into a bar and drink unhealthy amounts of alcohol.

Incorrect, the bartender can legally 'cut you off' if you are endagering yourself. If some one was hurt in anyway in his bar, he could be liable; especially an alcohol overdose.

And I can go home from that bar without any problem with society's penal mechanisms. (Assuming that I do not drive.)

Incorrect , 'Drunk in public' Penal Code 647(f) PC.

[Andrew D]

I can go into a bar and drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol.

Yes, a bartender can cut me off.

Still, I can go into a bar and drink an unhealthy amount of alcohol.

After having drunk an unhealthy amount of alcohol, I can walk home.

Yes, the police can arrest a person who is "in a condition that he or she is unable to exercise care for his or her own safety or the safety of others".

Still, after having drunk an unhealthy amount of alcohol, I can walk home.