This is one of teh deepest philosophical pieces I've seen on the internet in quite some time. It really gets to the heart of the legislating morality debate, and the heart of those who wish to do so.

It should also provide pretty good intellectual ammunition for discussing issues with people like this, although they still would be unlikely to get it.

Key to this piece are the two links at the beginning. View the YouTube video and read teh Quindlan piece in Newsweek. Both are superb.

http://www.dailykos.com/hotlist/add/200 ... laystory//

The difference between sin and crime
by Killer of Sacred Cows
Thu Aug 02, 2007 at 01:46:54 AM MST

Tonight, I got the opportunity to show my partner Danny this video, which I found through a friend on LiveJournal. There's also a great essay by Anna Quindlen about it here. Additionally, in her own essay about it, my LiveJournal friend talks about how these people have a real problem understanding the difference between morality and legality: specifically, that never the twain shall meet, and trying to mix them usually results in failure.

When I showed this video to Danny, his response was interesting, and got me thinking. He said "The problem is, these people don't understand the purpose of the law. What they want from the law is a validation of their religious belief, and that's not what law is for." I think he's right.

When you watch this video, you can almost see the gears turning, freezing, and jamming up in these folks' heads. They haven't thought it through. In some cases, they not only haven't thought it through, but they have avoided thinking about it at all. They literally have no answer as to what should happen to women who have abortions; they only think as far as legitimizing their views on abortion by making those views into law.

I think that's a pretty important observation. Simply put, it's about definitions. There's a disconnect there because they don't get that the law - at least, criminal law - isn't about validation of belief but about assignment of penalties. Laws do not, or at least should not, exist to simply promote the majority's values. They should exist to prevent or punish harm caused to other people through any number of vectors (personal assault, financial harm, etc.). Laws that have no penalty attached are generally unenforceable... and if there's no penalty or point, then the law doesn't mean anything, doesn't accomplish anything. It's just words in a book. The law is supposed to say "IF you do [x], THEN [y] will happen to you." You have to have both parts to make workable law. Otherwise, it's just a statement - a validation of some belief or other.

The problem is, in the world that these people live in (inside their heads and their shared collective consciousness), the point is that Good People Don't Break Laws. Law isn't about avoiding penalties. It's about not doing bad things. That's a problem, because for most people, the law isn't like that. Most of us trust our own judgement to decide whether a law is functional or not, and weigh the risks involved in breaking it. We all do that - speeding on the freeway being a prime example. I don't feel enormous guilt about going a few miles per hour over 65, especially when everyone else around me is doing it too and to slow down to the speed limit would create a traffic hazard. There are a lot of laws like that. But it seems to me that the viewpoint of the criminalize-abortion (and criminalize-homosexuality, and criminalize-polyamory, and criminalize-obscenity, and criminalize-immorality-in-general) movements seems to boil down to: if it's against the law, people won't do it.

Quindlen's article also points out that this is the Daddy State treating women like they're children, as if they aren't able to think for themselves. Women, in this view, are considered nearly innocent bystanders who just happened to be in the wrong clinic with their feet up in the stirrups at the wrong time; it's the doctors who do the deed who are the criminals. Even the idea of a woman giving herself an abortion with a bent coat hanger does not change this viewpoint - because what virtuous, good woman would do that? None, right?

This explains a lot of the motivation behind laws which criminalize consensual or personal decisions, such as polyamorous relationships, homosexuality, obscenity, gay marriage, and abortion. In all cases, the people who are trying to pass the law apparently think that simply having a law in place will stop people from engaging in these actions that they find so repulsive. If there's a law against homosexual behavior, people won't do it, right? If there's a law that says you can't have more than one partner, people won't have one, right? If there's a law that says you, a woman, can't make a simple decision about your reproductive health and welfare, then you won't do it, will you?

If only things were that simple! If they were, I could lobby for all kinds of laws, such as laws criminalizing non-critical thinking, abuse in the name of religion, and neoconservatism. I'm sure the world would be a much calmer place. But then again, I'm not willing to take people's choices away from them, no matter how much those choices annoy, frustrate, or irritate me - and no matter how much I rant and rave about the effects those choices have on me. If nothing else, it makes those who choose them quite obvious, so I can avoid or mock them as I please.

My partner also observed that these people don't think in terms of crime. They think in terms of sin. The disconnect may be too big to fix, because they may think of crime in terms of sin - confusing law with The Law.

Frankly, I think that's both sad and scary. It explains so much of the dominionist, fundamentalist, and uber-religious movements in this country and elsewhere... and at the same time, I haven't a clue how we can pierce the veil of ignorance and educate these folks as to the differences between law and The Law. I really don't. Apart from large billboards saying "SIN AND CRIME ARE TWO DIFFERENT AND UNRELATED THINGS," which probably won't penetrate but will simply give them that confused, someone's-speaking-Greek-again look. It's a problem of cultural context. In their context, anything bad is automatically both sin and crime. The two terms are pretty much synonymous. In the reality-based community, sin and crime are two totally separate things.

In fact, now that I'm thinking about it, culturally defined terms actually have a huge impact on this entire problem of dominionism and fundamentalism. Words like "marriage," "relationship," "partnership," "husband," "wife," "family" - all of these have culturally-defined meanings which vary from subculture to subculture. "Family" means one thing to a Dominionist, something else to a gay person, and something else again to an average suburbanite. Similarly, certain subcultures (such as dominionism) assume that two different words that mean the same thing in their culture will mean the same thing in the greater culture as well, even though they don't. This way lies much confusion and misunderstanding, for all sides.

I wonder if it might be as simple as sitting someone down who thinks that "sin" and "crime" mean the same thing and explaining, slowly and gently, that although those two words mean substantially the same thing in their religion, they don't mean the same thing in the larger culture, and explaining what each word does mean. I wonder if that would have any effect at all.

Probably not, but then again, it's worth a shot, isn't it?

that was good. i don't have much else to say at this point.

I think this article goes well with something I have been trying to hammer down to people who want such laws. There's a big difference between CONDEMNING an action and making the action ILLEGAL. Take drug use, for example. I (and any other reasonable person) condemn the usage of such drugs like meth or heroin, because of the irreparable damage it can cause to your life. However, I do not believe drug use should be illegal, because the consequences of criminalizing it (organized crime being a big one) are worse. Too many people take the leap too far and simply push for illegality.

Unfortunately, when that happens sometimes the condemnation aspect is weakened (the simplistic "Just Say No", anyone?). If people don't want people to do certain things, they're kidding themselves they think that a mere law will stop it.

good article

That link gives me a page with crap all over it. Is the ling to the article and video on that page somewhere. I'm too lazy to sift through it all for fear that it aint there.

Good article but I think the writer is way off base when he says " But it seems to me that the viewpoint of the criminalize-abortion (and criminalize-homosexuality, and criminalize-polyamory, and criminalize-obscenity, and criminalize-immorality-in-general) movements seems to boil down to: if it's against the law, people won't do it."

I don't think the intention of any law is to prevent people from doing it. The intention is that some acts go against the public good (or best interst) and as a way to discourage them there will be consequences. When government was small the infringement on our freedoms that "public good" made were very limited. But as government has grown the concept of "public good" has grown to include not hurting the governments bottom line. We now have a plethoria of laws, all for the public good that have infrnged our individual rights to such an extent that we have no idea what our personal rights should be. We've all been violated so many times by the concept of "public good" that we can't wait to fuck our neighbour over in the name of "public good".

But the more we fuck our neighbours over the more we lose sight of and even the ability to define what a "public good" is. We have laws telling me I have to wear a seabelt, a bike helmet, not to smoke pot. All made with great intentions and not caring a frig for my rights. I have one choice; bend over, shut up and take it like a man. And it's been done to me since birth so I think this is normal behavior and can't wait to get my hands on my neighbours hips and give it to him/her straight up the ass.

Is it a sin for me to buy beer on Sunday or after 11PM and before 8AM and not at other times of the week?

Because if so, I think it would be fun for someone to coin that biblical verse.

Also, is it as sin Pennsylvania to buy all types of alcohol in the same freaking store? I find it absolutely incredible in this day and age that governments are not smart enough to tax all kinds of alcohol seperately and sell them in the same store.

If it's legal I should be able to buy it if the store is open and carries the product period. There should be no law that makes me enter 3 different stores simply to get beer, wine, and whisky.


the problem with morality laws are in thier attempt to use the police power of the state to control peoples particular morality. I find that wrong. A law dosen't prevent a behavior it simply criminalizes the behavior.

Question for you if I may. Since all law is morality law do you believe there should be any laws? If so, who chooses the law?

I should probably wait for David to answer this question because he can probably phrase it better, but the only laws that should exist are ones to prevent a net demonstrable harm to either one of the parties involved (i.e., fraud, assualt) or to a non-involved third party (environmental laws come to mind here)

Homosexual acts, for example, have no demonstrable harm, hence why there should not be a law forbidding it.

That's pretty well written as is most of the author's material. Sin and crime are different, as one is judged by God and one by society. It could be argued that much what is called sin, at least in Christianity, is based on what was considered crime when the Bible was written. Greed (hoarding) could lead to starvation for example. The Libertarian part of me says that no rules that govern consensual behavior between adults should be enacted as law, but the conservative in me sees great societal value in the traditional family structure and thinks it in some cases it's society's best interest to try and protect that tradition. Finally, the kid in me likes the frosting side.

I wonder if the author would be so adamant about a woman's reproductive 'choice' if an in-utero gene therapy was invented the would change a person from homo to heterosexual. Or if only the wealthy could afford increase the intelligence of an unborn child using some medical process. I think it would be hypocritical to support the killing of the fetus and not support the modification of it.

The way to reconcile this would be to work on convincing the masses that your structure would be the best for society, instead of forcibly imposing that structure.

of course there should be laws. We're talking about the spirit of a law.

The spirit of the law I described is to use the police power of government to prevent people from obtaining a substance which some people feel is unsavory on thier holy day. Similar laws include laws against prostitiution or marijuana etc etc.

The purpose of an anti reckless driving law is to use the police power of government to ensure roads are traveled on safely so the public is protected.

Both are technically social mores true, but I think you can see the difference.

So you want your morality as law. You find "net demonstrable harm" immoral or wrong so want a law against. Great, but just realize that it is just as much a moral based law as not having liquor stores open on Sundays.

I always get the feeling that people think if their morals aren't faith based that they make the best basis for public law and that somehow the law isn't based in morals. Every law comes down to "this is how I think we should live". Every law is a moral law.

But there is no difference. They both were done with the intention of "public good" where the reality is to infringe in my freedom. Every law infringes on my freedoms, even the ones defending my freedoms. I don't make any technical distinction because fundamentally they are the same.

What I will admit to is some laws bother me less than others. I see the need for laws as part of the basis of a caring society but I also recognize every law as a two edged sword. I think part of what we are seeign is that as society gets more inclusive and varied the social mores are gettign harder and harder to agree on. But rather than cutting back on laws we create more laws policing us into a "caring Society" that is anythin gbut.

Well, I'm still trying to grasp your definition of "moral", but I'll say (agree?) that there must be some basis of right/wrong in order to justify a law. However, there should be a demonstrable reason for that law. Drunk driving laws are justified because there is concrete proof that being intoxicated impairs your ability to safely drive a vehicle. Someone purchasing liquor on a Sunday does not impact those opposed to it--they are not involved in the transaction. Thus it should not be justified.



The problem with faith-based laws is that they are based on belief instead of fact, and even then, not everyone may subscribe to that belief--such as the ban on liquor purchases on Sunday which derives from the Fourth Commandment.

To me, any basis of right/wrong is creating morals.

While I agree with drunk driving laws they were created merely on the basis of an activity having the possibility to harm others or society. This same thinking can be used to ban booze sales on Sunday, gay marriage, polygamy, I could go on and on. All laws are faith based, they are all built in the premise of I Believe this law will make for a better society, the fact that one can quote scripture to back it's belief or one can quote personal experience matters not in the genesis of the law being faith based.

Here's the video:



Here's the Quindlan article:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20010696/si ... ek/page/0/

I disagree with the premise of the question. Not all law is "morality law".

My theory on the purpose of law is related to the idea of "natural law".

Take away all laws. Now observe how society operates in the absence of laws. If people tend towards a behavior that is destructive to society, then a law needs to be created in order to counteract that natural tendency. For example, there is a natural tendency in people to take something they want, whether it belongs to them or not. That is why a HUGE amount of our law has to do with property rights.

In general, if the natural tendency of people is towards something that is not destructive, there is no need to have laws that address that activity.

So back to the point. Since law is mostly, and IMO should be entirely, in place to prevent harm done by people's natural tendencies, then in order to curb those destructive activities, the law must have consequences for the person breaking it that are a deterant to the action. So once you've figured out what penalty will accomplish that goal, you must re-examine the larger picture to see if perhaps the law and its penalty are worse than the results of the activity you're seeking to prevent.

It's much like trying to dam a river. Sometimes the flow just moves around the dam. Sometimes the flow breaks the dam. Sometimes the dam holds, but the ecosystem below the dam is harmed more than the damage that was caused by floods in teh past. The better model is levees with safety releases. You try to channel human behavior in a way that is not out of line with nature, but keeps things more controlled and managed. In some cases, you may just have to let go of the impulse to control, and just let live, and that is even more healthy for society than controlling the destructive behavior because people may learn that they'd rather go with the flow than to try to overflow the banks.

In my view as soon as you've said "a law needs to be created for society good" (paraphrased) you are creating moral based laws. Saying if it's to "counteract natural destructive behavior" is just playing in the mud. You've decided a right way to live and a wrong way to live. This coincides with dictionary.com's definition of moral "of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong;".

OK. I'll grant you that argument (although I thik it's you playing in the mud ).

So I'll raise you a "then what is the source of morals?"

It's kind of a chicken-or-the-egg thing. I would argue that something becomes "immoral" because it has been shown to be destructive to society in some way and therefore a law is justified. You seem to be operating from some etheral "right and wrong" morality and then justifying the imposition of laws based on that morality, apart from any analysis of the ultimate impact on, or genesis in, human interaction.