disclaimer: lately, i've been consumed by the controversial issue of people of the same gender being given the right to marry. in short, i am against the creation of what i feel is a new right. i would like to present my opinion and give my reasons. and what i have said already requires some explanation. but i can't possibly do it in one post. right now, my thoughts take up about 10 pages in notepad. nobody would take the time to read that. so i'm gonna give you little bits. feel free to slam me on any or all of these short posts, but please understand this is a complex argument. it will take lots of blogging to explain it all. each post will center around the philosophies of one or two individuals, whose arguments i will then attempt to expand on or apply to the issue of same-sex "marriage".
hart:
you can make anything legal, but you cannot make anything moral. herbert lionel adolphus hart, in his influential 1961 book, the concept of law, says one of the characteristics of morality is "immunity to deliberate change."
it is characteristic of a legal system that new legal rules can be introduced and old ones changed or repealed by deliberate enactment. by contrast, moral rules or principles cannot be brought into being or changed or eliminated in this way.
it [makes] perfectly good sense to say such things as '[beginning] 1 january 1960 it will be a criminal offense to do so-and-so' or '[beginning] 1 january 1960 it will no longer be illegal to do so-and-so.' by contrast, such statements as '[beginning] tomorrow, it will no longer be immoral to do so-and-so' or 'on 1 january last it became immoral to do so-and-so' would be astonishing...if not senseless.
standards of conduct cannot be endowed with...moral status by human fiat.
indeed. a 4-3 majority in boston, mayors in san francisco and new paltz, new york, and a county clerk in bernalillo, new mexico may be able to call an immoral practice legal...maybe. but they cannot make it moral.
Posted by travis at March 3, 2004 12:40 AM | TrackBackI am fascinated to hear how you are going to define what is "moral." Look forward to it.
About your quotation: it's true that it makes no sense to say on such a date, morality changes. However, many of the ideals that we all hold to be moral imperatives now were once considered immoral. Morality does change with society. Usually, that change can be shown later to have been a positive thing.
Examples:
In 12th century England, a person could be executed or jailed for participating in the sin of theater.
The Spanish Inquisition was then thought to be the height of morality. Now I think we can all agree that it was actually more like a murderous rampage.
The thought of letting black people integrate into white society was thought to be a huge sign of morality's decline (the moral gague then being that white people were superior and allowing other to inter-mingle would lessen God's true race).
Elvis was thought by many to be the devil incarnate (how he did gyrate). Now we know that it's actually Janet Jackson, and Elvis seems pretty freaking tame.
With the exception of the Elvis thing, changing morality has usually reflected a maturing society. As tempting as it may be to shout about society's decline (as folks did with the end of each of these), the truth is that this is society advancing.
Posted by: dan at March 3, 2004 03:21 AMdan, theatre is still a sin in my book.
Posted by: admin at March 3, 2004 06:21 AM"In 12th century England, a person could be executed or jailed for participating in the sin of theater."
So what? In 20th century Alabama, it was illegal to "wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church." [source]
"The Spanish Inquisition was then thought to be the height of morality."
By whom? Those carrying out the Inquisition no doubt, but few others.
"Now I think we can all agree that it was actually more like a murderous rampage."
Indeed. As I'm sure the majority of "non-Inquisitioners" felt at the time.
And your list goes on...
The fact that certain people believe one thing is moral, doesn't make it so. Nor does legislation legitimize it. That is what Hart is arguing. It's good to see that you agree.
Posted by: Doug at March 3, 2004 07:51 AM