From: bernstei@caesar.cs.colorado.edu (Michael Bernstein)
Subject: Re: The "Hate" Problem -- Amendment 2
Organization: University of Colorado at Boulder
Distribution: co
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 05:30:11 GMT

In article <Bz9Iw7.9Iy@fc.sde.hp.com> marc@hpmonk.fc.hp.com = MA writes:
MA> You've said this before, and this would seem to imply that you saw
MA> nothing wrong with slavery or public lynchings either - or at least
MA> that the goverment should not have done anything about either of
MA> these.  Am I correct?  If so, at least you are being consistent,
MA> although not, I think, within the mainstream of modern thinking.
MA> If I am mistaken, you'd better explain how one form of "imposing
MA> morals" is acceptable but the other isn't.

In article <1992Dec15.171906.7139@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> fcrary@ucsu.Colorado.EDU 
(Frank Crary=FC) writes:
FC> Anti-discrimination laws differ from, say, laws against lynchings in
FC> two respects: First, one requires an action while the other forbids one.

Come again?  Let me posit an anti-discrimination law (I don't have the texts
of the Boulder or Denver ordinances handy; sorry):

	No employer may hire or fire on the basis of sexual orientation.

(Insert "race" or "sex" for "sexual orientation" if you like; the
proposed amendment to the US constitution [ERA] regarding sexual discrimination
says:

  Section 1.  Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or
 abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.

)

How does this, or any anti-discrimination (not affirmative action, which I
see as rather a different sort of thing) law require an action rather
than prohibit an action?

FC> I see the role of government purely as preventing harmfull acts, as for
FC> example, prohibiting lynching someone. If someone whats simply to be left
FC> alone and have nothing to do with the issue, I don't see it as the
FC> government's place to step in and _force_ him to do something (e.g. 
FC> hiring someone) 

But anti-discrimination laws do not force you to hire someone; they prevent
you from hiring or firing that person on the basis of their sexual orientation,
race, or religion. 

And as far as "purely preventing harmfull[sic] acts," is Jack Kevorkian's
work "harmful acts?"  The people he helps to commit suicide might say
that keeping them alive is a harmful act.  Their relatives might disagree.

FC>                                   Second, laws such as those against
FC> lyniching make no moral judgements about the relative worth of individual
FC> rights: No one has a "right" to lynch others, so the only rights involved
FC> are those of the victim. Clearly, the government has a place protecting
FC> one person's rights when doing so does not infringe on anyone else's
FC> rights. However, in the case of anti-discrimination laws, there are
FC> other people's rights involved: The right of an employer to pay only
FC> the people he wishes or to fire someone for what he considers suficient
FC> cause, for example. Since society as a whole has no clear opinions
FC> on who's rights are more important (and some people have very strong 
FC> opinions on the subject), I don't think it is really the government's
FC> place to step in and dictate one moral judgement over another.

Come again?  Our government does make moral judgements.  What existence
do "rights" have?  Our laws against murder and rape are predicated finally
on a moral basis, that of inalienable rights of the individual.

And as regard to lynching: "Why don't I have the right to execute justice
as I see fit?  It's obvious to me -- and to several of my friends -- that
the black bastard raped my sister.  There's certainly no way in hell she
would have gone with him willingly."  While I find that point of view
repugnant, it certainly does assume the existence of some right.  And while
I disagree -- I don't think that the right to have one's sister free of
association with black men is at all equal to a black man's right to life --
well, there are some people with very strong opinions on the subject.

We do, as a society, have to make decisions about the morals we enforce.
While I happen to disagree with the majority of voters in the last election
about *what* moral principles, I do agree that we have to have some 
principles enforced.

Michael 

(bernstei@cs.colorado.edu)

People that are really very wierd can get into sensitive positions
and have a tremendous impact on history.
                -- Vice President Dan Quayle
Newsgroups: co.politics,boulder.general,co.general