Originally posted by phank
View Post
The basic problem with this apparently sensible position, is that "the rights of others" is a vast gray area in a pluralistic society, where what people do tends to have ripple effects. Am I interfering with the rights of others if I drive around drunk? Well, only if I collide with them - and most of the time most drunks don't collide. We observe that the probability of an accident rises from some nonzero value to some higher nonzero value after drinking. So we rather arbitrarily decide that that above X% levels, the danger is unacceptably high.
The canonical case is probably abortion. In some nations, abortion is mandatory. In others, it is prohibited. In the US, the land of the free, the principle is that each person act according to her own beliefs but not force those beliefs onto others. The counter argument is that the fetus is an "other person" with rights. So we can't allow pregnant women free choice to abort, anymore than we can allow good drivers to speed. When everything we do has potentially some effect on others, where should the line be drawn? How loud is my right to play my guitar, before I infringe on my neighbor's right to quiet? Should I be permitted to engage in dangerous sports (like riding a motorcycle without a helmet), when injuries raise everyone else's insurance premiums?
Raised to the heights of idiocy, we find the bans on same-sex marriage -- which clearly injure a small minority while offering no tangible benefit to anyone whatsoever. Yet people are often vehemently opposed, because their right to "the sanctity of their marriage" is somehow threatened. Should the fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying the same rights I have be regarded as fearful enough so that the rights of others should be denied? In more than half the states, that fear (nebulous and intangible as it is) was enough to vote actual state constitutional amendments to protect the majority against the exercise of equal rights by a minority.
When I'm able to use the power of civil law to punish those who don't think as I think, even though they DO nothing that can harm me, we have lost our sense of balance. Hopefully not beyond recovery.
The canonical case is probably abortion. In some nations, abortion is mandatory. In others, it is prohibited. In the US, the land of the free, the principle is that each person act according to her own beliefs but not force those beliefs onto others. The counter argument is that the fetus is an "other person" with rights. So we can't allow pregnant women free choice to abort, anymore than we can allow good drivers to speed. When everything we do has potentially some effect on others, where should the line be drawn? How loud is my right to play my guitar, before I infringe on my neighbor's right to quiet? Should I be permitted to engage in dangerous sports (like riding a motorcycle without a helmet), when injuries raise everyone else's insurance premiums?
Raised to the heights of idiocy, we find the bans on same-sex marriage -- which clearly injure a small minority while offering no tangible benefit to anyone whatsoever. Yet people are often vehemently opposed, because their right to "the sanctity of their marriage" is somehow threatened. Should the fear that someone, somewhere, is enjoying the same rights I have be regarded as fearful enough so that the rights of others should be denied? In more than half the states, that fear (nebulous and intangible as it is) was enough to vote actual state constitutional amendments to protect the majority against the exercise of equal rights by a minority.
When I'm able to use the power of civil law to punish those who don't think as I think, even though they DO nothing that can harm me, we have lost our sense of balance. Hopefully not beyond recovery.
It IS a lot of grey, isn't it? And that's where courts come in. Courts that rule against what you'd prefer are 'activist' courts, while those who rule agreeing with you are called 'so there!' courts.
Comment