Everyone thinks they're out to create Paradise.

[otherlander]

Everyone thinks the angels are on their side, and everyone thinks that they're acting out of love, driven by the best possible intentions, and everyone thinks that the world that would exist if they had their way would be the best possible world for everyone, would be paradise. Well, not everyone. Not the economic hitmen or the military dictators. But the punks, the hippies, the socialists, the anarchists, the biologists, and the crazy street preachers.

Among progressive circles, it's popular to say that conservatives want to legislate morality. By this, we mean that they want to do things like outlaw abortion and discriminate against everyone who isn't heterosexual. Those are their morals, and we consider them misguided. Could it be said, though, that everyone wants to legislate their own morals, and that the critical difference is simply the source of our morality? That conservatives want to legislate morality based on the Bible, which goes against the separation of church and state, whereas we want to legislate our morals, which are based on letting people do as they will unless it harms someone else?

If not, what is the basis of what progressives want to be the law? Is it the Bill of Rights? Is it John Stuart Mill's Harm Principle? If so, what is the basis of thinking that one of those things should be the basis of the law? It can't be purely objective, because pure objectivity makes no ethical distinctions between the process that creates penicillin and the process that creates the atom bomb. Even things that can objectively be said to exist- such as pain, or happiness- cannot be called good or bad without being somewhat subjective. I would ideally want a legal system that lets people do all things- and only things- that do not harm others, but even that cannot be said to be entirely objective, because it's based on the subjective judgment that decreasing suffering is the morally correct thing to do. If, ideally, we would not set morality as the basis of the law, then what would be the basis of the law?

[patrice]

1. Everyone? All of us do not think we can make statements about Everyone.

Some of us do actually believe that the Whole IS greater than the sum of its parts.

[otherlander]

2. From the OP:

Well, not everyone. Not the economic hitmen or the military dictators. But the punks, the hippies, the socialists, the anarchists, the biologists, and the crazy street preachers.

Ok, so the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. But that's not what the post was about. In fact, I don't really understand how your statement relates to it at all. The post was about what progressives think should be the basis of the legal system. You're a progressive, right? So what do you think that should be?

[patrice]

3. My response was relevant to your assumption that I think my morals should be Everyone elses',

that I somehow know how Everyone should live.

I don't.

[InternalDialogue]

4. Which system of morality allows the others to exist in their most whole form?

Political perspective aside, which system of laws would organize society in such a way that the laws of morality of those not in power are still mostly intact?

In other words, would not the most efficient and acceptable system be the one whose common denominator is most universal? That system would include parts that everyone agrees on while excluding the minimum from all the rest. Assume a simple system between two factions. One set of laws satisfies one group completely while satisfying the other group only 20 percent. The second set of laws satisfies one group 80 percent while satisfying the other group 40 percent. Is the second set of laws more common, although it doesn't satisfy either group 100 percent?

[tama]

9. What kind of world view

gives room for all possible world views?

And no, universalism based on lowest common denominator is the most hideous idea. Look at what it has done to us and this place we call Earth.

[InternalDialogue]

14. I'm merely asking a question to help define some parameters.

Is a system of laws that satisfies one mindset entirely and ignores another acceptable (as law) in a society, if there is another system that accommodates two separate groups in part (satisfying neither in its entirety) at the same time?

By "lowest common denominator" I don't mean the most base laws, but the ones (like freedom of expression) that are acceptable to the most groups at the same time.

I think the essence of my idea is a minimalism at heart -- what is the set of rules that a society can live by that regulates people the least while still allowing the most freedom. My thought is that such laws should be the baseline establishment on which others should be built.

[Beregond2]

5. It is nonsense to say "You can't legislate morality."

The law is nothing but legislating morality. That is it's function. The question is, WHO'S mroality, which is the point of your post.

Personally, I think the attempt to create Paradise has led to more human misery than any other cause. Ideals must be tempered with a healthy skepticism and realism.

[otherlander]

12. So even in an ideal progressive system...

morality would be the basis of the law, is what you're saying? I think I agree. It's just that we would prefer to legislate the morality of freedom and human rights, rather than the morals of nationalism or theology. But then, after hearing people saying that the right's problem was their moralism (read: gay bashing and anti-choice ideas), I wondered what other progressives would say about my idea that the law should be moral, just not in the way that the righties want it to be. Would they say that we want the law to be based on logic? That's impossible, because purely objective logic has no ethics. Pure logic has nothing to do with "should". There has to be some kind of moral axiom at the base of everything (Freedom = Good, Violence = Bad, or something like that) for a legal system to build logically upon.

[AndyTiedye]

6. The Bill of Rights (and the Rest of the Constitution) Would be a Pretty Good Start

The Constitution is not perfect, but it is a better basis for government than "Patriot Acts", executive orders, and signing statements.

This hippy isn't trying to create paradise, just trying to stop the Straight-Off-a-Cliff-Express!

[tama]

7. Thanks for posting

You hit the nerve. Jesus said "do not judge, lest you be judged".

I have my preferenses of ethics (=social customs). And hope to live in a community that shares similar values and customs that suit my preferences. But that's just me and I don't want to be the Supreme God-Patriarch. So what is really evil is the universalist idea that everybody should live and behave the way I think is the best, because I know the universal truth. As long as a community lives sustainably, behaves so that it does not bother other communities too much and does not fuck the foundation of life by destroying our common Earth, I don't give a fuck if they eat their mothers and gang-rape their children, as long as I don't have to live with them but can find other localities. Leben und leben lassen, the golden rule.

[tama]

8. And yes,

I will not settle for anything less than a Paradise on Earth, if I'm asked and have to stay in this cycle of birth and death. Garden planet, multitude of all kinds of self-sustainable communities of hunter gatherers, gardeners and other sustainable ways of life in harmony with the local nature. Paradise is a very simple idea, and totally practical.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

10. Morality is a reflection of the society in which it abides.

As such, seeing that society can so often be wrong, I would prefer that law be based on rationality, i.e. common sense.

A couple of old adages might come in handy.

"First do no harm"

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

Of course, the lawyers and politicians, would soon be looking for loopholes.

[Adsos Letter]

11. Query 17....

of Jefferson's "Notes on the State of Virginia" and Locke's "A Letter Concerning Toleration" are favorites of mine on questions of this sort.

[Naturyl]

13. Everything is 2-sided, and you have to take sides.

There is no real neutrality in this life. On any given issue, we pick the side that fits who we are.

Taking sides is the nature of things.