I thought it merely trivialized incest. Chewing gum?
I understand your reaction. Didn't mean it that way. I was just an example of something that was neither to be commended nor outlawed. Sometimes it comes across that anything we perceive of as wrong should be outlawed. Or that leaving something legal somehow legitimizes it. But that's not the case.
mark you down for civil marriages for fathers-daughters.
I thought I was clear that I don't favor it, only that I don't think it should be illegal.
You just found the great estate tax dodge.
I don't much favor estate taxes, either. <g>
I think laws need to reflect the moral values of the underlying society.
The law does reflect our moral values. It just doesn't get down into the weeds. The law isn't the only vehicle we have to express our values. For example, jumping a queue is immoral but we don't have a law against it. When someone tries to do it, the queue arises to express its displeasure and run the jumper off. Would it be better somehow to call a cop? Have a trial? Fill the prisons?
Our law is set up to protect people from each other, damage to our persons and property. That's what the Constitution says. It doesn't say anything about the full panoply of moral values. We have informal mechanisms and formal institutions other than the law to project and support our values, that provide rewards and punishment for transgressions. The law isn't the only tool in the toolkit. And it doesn't say anything about immoral acts that don't harm others. None of the seven deadly sins is against the law. Would you criminalize them, too?
I ran into this on a blog today:
Law and Morality
Eugene Volokh • December 12, 2010 4:09 pm
Some comments on the incest thread seem to argue that incest should be banned just because it’s immoral. I don’t think this can be right. There is lots of immoral behavior — cruelty, ingratitude, and a variety of other things — that is not illegal. (On a related point, for a list of violations of the Ten Commandments that aren’t illegal, see here.) It follows, I think, that we have concluded, and rightly so, that mere immorality can’t justify illegality. There has to be something else that supports the judgment.
Before someone is deprived his liberty, we need to have some good reason. Before the taxpayers are required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to prosecute and imprison a person, we need to have some good reason. That reason could be direct harm to someone, or indirect harm. But if one can’t identify some such harm, I don’t see why we should lock someone up, or spend lots of your and my money. Naturally, the judgment about what constitutes harm will turn on your understanding of morality; but if you want to use taxpayer money and restrict people’s liberty you should have some more specific reasoning than just “it’s immoral.”
volokh.com
where's the dividing line and how do you draw it?
1) I would draw it at measurable harm to person or property, someone else's person or property.
2) I would draw it at cost effectiveness--is it worth the cost of enforcement? If we wanted to criminalize and enforce all immorality, our entire economy would be consumed by the legal structure required.
3) And whether it would be an effective deterrent or would people do it anyway. Laws that produce large numbers of scofflaws carry a message that disrespects the moral standard more than if it weren't illegal at all.
Re marriages between fathers and daughters, how much overhead would be appropriate to deter the three couples in the country who would want to do that? Could we not make better use of those resources? |
