The Problem of Condoning

[Orlion]

I've been thinking over a problem lately, and wanted some different insights into the matter, and what better place then the Watch?

Consider the following: There is movement to outlaw alcohol (prohibition), and as can be expected, the debate is pretty heated. You belong to a belief system that irrevocably declares that alcohol consumption is sinful and damning. If for no other reason, you therefore find alcohol consumption to be immoral. But, you're just liberal enough to believe that people ought to make their own choices, whether they be moral or immoral. What would be the correct action for you to take?

i)You could support the prohibition, but this would violate the right of others to choose as they damn well please.
ii)You could oppose the prohibition, but then, in a sense, are you not then condoning or at least participating in a political action that would condone the consumption of alcoholic beverages (which such sanction would be against you morals)?
iii)Try not to participate (in this case, you seem to be violating both of your ideals)
iv)Is there another alternative?

I realize that many do not share the exact viewpoint embodied in this problem, but I would appreciate any thoughts concerning how one would try to resolve this problem.

[Menolly]

It is the exact problem Joseph Lieberman faced as a Torah-observant Jew in the Senate in regards to abortion.

*sorry to use that example, this will not be an abortion debate, I promise. just, it is a real and not a hypothetical example*

As a Torah-observant (commonly referred to as Orthodox) Jew, his belief system dictates that abortion is unethical and immoral. And my understanding is he himself, as far as what he personally would do should he have had to deal with such a decision, would not consider it as a choice for his family.

However, Judaism believes the law of the land supersedes the Law. Meaning Jewish Law does not apply to non-Jews, in any way. And the Law is a guidebook of how HaShem wishes us to live our life. Yes, there is sin, but it is not damning to commit as it is considered in other religions.

The Supreme Court of the land found abortion to be legal, and it was his duty as senator to uphold the law.

I too view Jewish law the same way. What my own personal beliefs are does not, in any way, influence what I believe the "law of the land" should be. So, the more the right of the individual has to make choices for themselves, regardless of if it conflicts with my own belief, the better.

[Orlion]

Thanks for the answer (and the example, much better then mine, maybe we should refer to it instead of my crummy prohibition scenario )

[Menolly]

As long as this doesn't turn in to an abortion debate...

[Louis de la Forêt]

It all comes down to whether your belief system also dictates that it's your job to help others avoid immorality (with or without their concent). You say that you're liberal enough to think you shouldn't dictate to others... there's your answer.

On the other hand, if the belief system that tells you that alcohol is immoral also includes a concept of policing your neighbor, then you're kind of stuck. (For example, some interpret the "Brother's Keeper" bit in the Bible to mean that they should actively work to keep each other from transgressions.)

[danlo]

Make alcohol tax pay for soundproofing your home and tazer any drunk who steps on your lawn.

[CovenantJr]

It all comes down to whether your belief system also dictates that it's your job to help others avoid immorality (with or without their concent).

I agree that the belief system is pivotal to this whole matter. The original question, though, seems to imply that it's not dictated by the belief system.

Personally, I'm disposed to feel that the morality or immorality of others is their own lookout, as long as no-one else is caused harm by it. But then I seem to be something of a relativist by inclination. I would also say that people should obey the law of their land, but if they feel strongly enough that it's wrong they can feel free to disobey - as long as they're prepared to face the consequences. I don't much believe in immunity from secular law by philosophical conviction.

Thanks for the answer (and the example, much better then mine, maybe we should refer to it instead of my crummy prohibition scenario )

There's nothing wrong with your hypothetical scenario. It does its job perfectly well.

[Louis de la Forêt]

I agree that the belief system is pivotal to this whole matter. The original question, though, seems to imply that it's not dictated by the belief system.

If not, there's not really a conflict here, and why ask the question?

Personally, I'm disposed to feel that the morality or immorality of others is their own lookout, as long as no-one else is caused harm by it. But then I seem to be something of a relativist by inclination. I would also say that people should obey the law of their land, but if they feel strongly enough that it's wrong they can feel free to disobey - as long as they're prepared to face the consequences. I don't much believe in immunity from secular law by philosophical conviction.

The other option would be go champion a change in the secular laws to reflect your personal belief system. (Hopefully by convincing everyone else that you're right.) Both the beginning and end of the American Prohibition are examples of this.

There's nothing wrong with your hypothetical scenarion. It does its job perfectly well.

+1

[CovenantJr]

I agree that the belief system is pivotal to this whole matter. The original question, though, seems to imply that it's not dictated by the belief system.

If not, there's not really a conflict here, and why ask the question?

I interpret the question as one of whether we, personally, feel we should attempt to 'save' others, even if it's not explicitly stated in our chosen belief system. I agree that for some of us there is little conflict, since we already have a strong idea of where we stand on this. But it's not necessarily so for everyone.

[wayfriend]

Why is thread called "The Problem of Condoning".

Based on the hypothetical scenario, it's not a question of condoning, it's a question of forgoing censure.

Because I believe saying it's up to other people to make their own choice, that's not condoning something. That's tolerating. Maybe.

Not that I expect everyone to agree with that. There are people that would say, "How uncaring would I have to be to let you do that and damn yourself?" and so think its their prerogative to interfere with your choice.

[Vraith]

It's really [in it's way, and not alcohol only] a tough issue for the vast majority of us who fall somewhere in between the poles of "It's Immoral, so there must be a Law" and "No one has the right to tell me what to do unless I hurt someone else." I know where I stand on issues like this...but I'm interested to see when (and why and how) you watchers decide to take the step from "I believe it's immoral" to "there oughta be a Law!"
[not to make this another religion debate either...but I've always had the impression that the "Brother's keeper" idea was counterweighted by the "Render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar's, God what is God's"...though I've heard some interesting interpretations of that]

[stonemaybe]

Maybe getting off topic, but I don't think there should be any relation whatsoever between someone's idea of what's immoral and the law of the land (even if it's a majority view).

[Louis de la Forêt]

So... here's a couple examples, starting at one end of the scale and moving away from it... at some point we start getting into the area (at least for me) where it's okay for someone else to intrude into a person's soverignty.

1) infants are pretty much incapable of making rational decisions for themselves, so someone else (typicall a parent) does so for them

2) you're walking down the street and find someone passed out on the side of the road... do you know if the person's religious beliefs preclude certain types of medical care?

3) a person is very clearly mentally incompitant, to the point of not being able to feed or clothe himself

4) a person is very addicted to some drug, and is willing to do anything, even make (what seem to us as) irrational decisions in order to score more [I knew a woman who let her children go hungry and unbathed for weeks because she was shooting up heroin.]

5) a person is with a physically abusive partner, and refuses to see that he isn't going to change

6) a parent chooses not to give permission for a medical treatment that could save a child, because it's prohibited by their religion

7) someone close to you threatens to commit suicide

your daughter goes off to college and turns into a raging slut

9) your son is gay

In every situation, somebody could look in and decide that this person is clearly incapable of making rational decisions, and that person needs to make decisions for him / her (sometimes even going against the decisions the person would make on his / her own).

I guess in cases where a person's decisions would hurt somebody else, it's easy for us to say that those decisions shouldn't be allowed to go through. In the ones where the decisions only hurt the person... it's harder to just make a rule.

I honestly don't know why I choose what I choose for each of these, but it seems clear that it's not because of any rational ideal that I'm applying to my decisions. There's something irrational here, and it seems to apply to some situations differently than others.

[stonemaybe]

unfortunate 8 followed by brackets there, Harbringer!

[Vraith]

unfortunate 8 followed by brackets there, Harbringer!

Are you sure? Maybe he knew the girl and disliked her parents..

On your previous post...that's part of why I said it was tough to decide...some think law and morality completely separate, some think one depends on the other...and most are somewhere in between. [and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Law that has no relationship with moral issues, whether they're the determining factor or not]

[stonemaybe]

[and I think you'd be hard pressed to find any Law that has no relationship with moral issues, whether they're the determining factor or not]

I know .

I realise my statement above is missing a bit - what do I think laws should be based on? Actual harm to others is the answer, and they should be damn strict too! So for example, I would say that drinking alcohol should not be illegal, but drink too much and go out and beat someone up, you should go to jail for a year+.

I admit I haven't thought this through fully. But it's my gut feeling.

[Cail]

I was going to answer to this last night, but got sidetracked. Vraith hit the nail. If no harm is done to others, then there's really no issue.

The problem is that the road to Hell is paved with good intentions, and dang it, won't someone think about the children? Looking at Harb's list there, there are plenty of people who will argue passionately about the legal and moral necessity of helping others.

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I find it incredibly offensive when people talk about the moral necessity to help those "less fortunate" than us (whatever that means). Those people tend to believe that it's OK to take from certain people to give to others. That's based on their morality.

The irony is that those people tend to be diametrically opposed to the people who would pass morality laws governing sex, drugs, and other behavioral "vices".

[Kinslaughterer]

Every documented pre-modern culture on earth has moral and ethical laws to to maintain (ideally) the status quo. They all have a form of welfare that protects the "less fortunate" from the excesses of inequality.

Famously the Kung! have a saying something like "a poor man shames us all" because in marginal regions (a good deal of the world actually) the success of both the very fortunate and less fortunate are tied to the society they are a part of.

That's why people are communal by nature just as our primate ancestors were; their success is tied to the success of the group. Of course there are cultural mechanisms to deal with those unwilling to participate be they rich or poor.

Another irony would be those who acquire great wealth in whatever form tend to forget that society aided them by buying, selling, welfare in lean times, labor, providing marriage partners, kin, and defense.

[Cail]

Thanks Kins for providing the example I was talking about. Laws based on morality are apparently A-OK as long as they're the "right" morality.

[Kinslaughterer]

The morality that a culture group believes in, sure. Examples of cultural universals: marriage, taboo against incest, taboo against murder, welfare, sport, family structure, funerary ritual, and age grades too name a few. In every case moral/ethic ties are intertwined.

Who better to define morality than every culture of an entire species?