Replies

-—Law is based on what is perceived as the Greater Good-—

The Common Good, or “the General Welfare,” as it’s called in the Constitution.

-—which is more of an ethical than a moral basis.-—

What’s the difference?

-—Law govern’t an individual’s behavior, in that it is designed to prevent predatory behavior of one individual, against society at large.——

Most laws, but not all. What about laws governing child custody? What about a war-time draft? A peace-time army? Tax-funded schooling? Tax-funded roads?

-—However, when any one group claims moral supremecy, and uses force of law to inflict it’s moral code upon the public at large - we wind up with an Eutopia as found in Iran, Iraq, Sudan, Kuwait, Afghanistan and many of the former republics of the USSR.-—

Or our current system of government. Wasn’t it established by force? Don’t you consider your vision of a “Greater Good” morally superior to other forms of govt? Aren’t you willing to impose it and uphold it using force? I am.

I’m not drawing a moral equivalence. My point is that force may be used justly or unjustly.

——Porn, while I freely admit that this is an evil influence; is a byproduct of freedom.——

So is loud music, but we restrict it when reasonable.

-—To supress this, is to supress others by instilling YOUR will as supreme, and with no small amount of arrogance in telling them that YOU are smarter than them, and doing this ‘for their own good’.-—

Or “the greater good.” Of course. Anyone who thinks pornography is harmless is wrong. Metaphysically wrong.

That much is trivial.

The challenge is to find ways to restrict it as much as possible without causing greater societal harm.

——This is what the current administration is doing now - you are not smart enough to get insurance, so they will mandate it for you.——

This is the imposition of a positive obligation, that is not always good, versus the restriction of an intrinsic evil.

-—You aren’t smart enough to buy the ‘proper’ light bulb, so they will force you to use the ‘proper’ light bulb.-—

This is a case of error. There are conditions underwhich this could be reasonable (dire energy crisis, war time, if incandescent bulbs had harmful side-effects).

——This is the path of the Nanny state - which seeks to oppress free will and freedom itself.-—

Depends on the case. The “right” to do evil, like viewing pornography, may be justified on prudential grounds, but it is not a natural right, since God is the God of nature, and He did not give us free will to choose evil, but to choose among goods.

-—If you choose not to use Porn, that is your right.-—

I have the right to avoid evil. That seems to be a low threshold for the establishment of a just society.

-—However, your right stops at my door;-—

You will make me watch pornography at your home?

-—at my discretion, I shall view porn (legal, not kiddie-porn) to my hearts content, if I so wish.-—

This sounds like an assertion, more than a justification.

Invading homes to confiscate pornography would cause more harm than good. But that doesn’t make home viewing of pornography good, in any sense.

—— I shall read any book I deem fit, visit any website of my chosing - and it’s none of your business.-—

Not mine particularly, but society’s, yes. Pornography degrades the user, and his interaction with family members and others.

Just because some activity may be civilly tolerated doesn’t make it good.