LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

@aidan,

aidan wrote:

Quote:
If it aint easy - we don't want it.
(That's why David needs his yellow cabs)
(Just kidding David)

SO STIPULATED, Rebecca

David

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

Quote:

Quote:

You would probably like Williams overall though
because he is as passionately libertarian as you are.

That strains credulity, based upon the implicit assumptions
of his article. Nowhere in his article did I see him exalt liberty
nor champion freedom. Williams assumes that individual freedom
and the dignity of the individual (especially YOUNG individual)
shoud be subordinated to the well being of society.

From that, I dissent.

Very well said David.

0 Replies

I think that as the threats to human survival continue to multiply and continue to not be effectively dealt with we will turn back to the old ways. We will once again consider life a collective effort, and will again hold to account those individuals who don't get with the program. This allegiance to the individual and his "rights" has had a good run, but it is no longer helpful in dealing with our situation, it will be abandoned.

Note: I am not advocating for such, I am observing.

0 Replies

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Quote:

David, thanks for your time and effort to respond in such detail.
We are usually on the same page on most stuff but this time I will
have to respectfully mostly disagree, as I do see merit and benefit
from many of the American values that Williams mentioned.

I don 't deny that there is merit and benefit
from many of the American values that Williams mentioned,
but I maintain that thay shoud be subordinated
to higher considerations, to wit: freedom of the Individual Citizen.

It may not be immediately apparent in the piece I cited, but to really read Williams with an open mind over time, a sense of what he is about does become apparent. He would stand shoulder to shoulder with you to defend our rights to not embrace such values should the government presume to mandate or enforce them, but also neither should government interfere with or discourage them.

What I take from the piece is that we have lost much with the erosion of certain traditional values that had produced a society that was less violent, freer, more civil, more pleasant, and more edifying to live in than what we frequently see now. (In other writings he has also expressed the flip side of different values that some in our society would presume to now force upon us all, and would punish us if we do not embrace.)

Quote:

Quote:

I don't think choosing to be courteous, civil, or conform to societal values
takes anything away from us or diminishes our ability to be our own person in the least while it does provide measurable benefits

OK, IF that can be done without one group of people (e.g., the young) subordinating itself to another by means of this voluntary courtesy.
When I meet a young person, if we are to be on a first name basis,
I introduce myself by my first name. I have found that parents
ofen tell them to refer to me by my last name, but I usually say:
"no, no, no, just David" thereby to preserve a plane of equality,
and friendship, as distinct from a relationship of domination.
Williams differs from that point of vu; i.e., he wants children
to adopt behaviors which result in their implicitly inviting subjugation.
There is a widespread mindset of children being PROPERTY,
like the family horse. This concept was conspicuous in the debate
qua whether to grant political assylum to Elian Gonzalez.
The 13th Amendment being what it is,
it seems to me that children have the OPPORTUNITY to be the guests
of their parents, NOT the duty, to be their slaves.
If a child elects to leave his parents, that is DIFFERENT than
the family horse breaking out of the corral and departing hence.

When I was on-the-job taking the testimony of children,
I never talked down to them; treated them with the same respect as anyone.

There is nobody on the planet more passionate about protecting, defending, and being advocate for children than I am and there is little that produces more anger in me than those who would mistreat, abuse, or harm them in any way. As a battered child, physically and emotionally, myself, I am perhaps more sensitive to that than the average person. I have also done a good deal of work teaching and working with kids/youth.

But here I do disagree with you if I am understanding you correctly. I think to fail to discipline and instruct children is tantamount to child abuse. I think kids should understand that they are not yet adults and a respect for authority or those more experienced or wiser is a healthy thing.

It is the duty and responsibility of parents to set an example for children, to teach them, to instruct them, and discipline, not because they are property, but because they are immature humans who do not possess the intellect or self discipline to keep themselves out of trouble in many cases. There is a very big difference in taking on such responsibility constructively and in attempting to live the child's life for him or her which is destructive. To fail to provide loving instruction and discipline and the child will be a damaged person as evidenced in the high prevalence of school drop outs, gang activity, illegal activity, anti social behavior, unwanted pregnancies, and substance abuse among children who are poorly parented or not parented at all. Also I pity children who are denied nothing and never have the wonderful anticipation of achieving majority and experiencing adult things. (Disclaimer: I am speaking in trends and broad generalities here. There will always be anomalies in which poorly parented kids will turn out okay and some that have wonderful parents who won't.)

Discipline as I experienced it was destructive, but that was not what Williams was talking about. Virtually without exception, those of my generation who got 'smacked' now and then for impertinence and disrespect or antisocial conduct agree that it did not harm them in the least and they are grateful that they had parents who cared enough to discipline them.

So we may have to agree to disagree on that point.

Quote:

Quote:
You would probably like Williams overall though
because he is as passionately libertarian as you are.

That strains credulity, based upon the implicit assumptions
of his article. Nowhere in his article did I see him exalt liberty
nor champion freedom. Williams assumes that individual freedom
and the dignity of the individual (especially YOUNG individual)
shoud be subordinated to the well being of society.

From that, I dissent.

Well as noted, we disagree on whether children should have the same rights as and be treated as adults. But here is another of Williams' essays. Would you agree or disagree as he presumes a freedom here that would probably not be agreeable with many of our friend? In posting it, I fully expect some to misunderstand what he is saying entirely. (Remember that this is a black man who was a poor black kid who grew up under racial segregation.)

The reason I like him so much is that he thinks outside the box, much as you do, and sees things differently than most people see them.

Quote:

What is Discrimination?
by Walter Williams (September 6, 2006)

There's so much confusion and emotionalism about discrimination that I thought I'd take a stab at a dispassionate analysis. Discrimination is simply the act of choice. When we choose Bordeaux wine, we discriminate against Burgundy wine. When I married Mrs. Williams, I discriminated against other women. Even though I occasionally think about equal opportunity, Mrs.
Williams demands continued discrimination.

You say, "Williams, such discrimination doesn't harm anyone."

You're wrong. Discriminating in favor of Bordeaux wine reduces the value of resources held in Burgundy production. Discriminating in favor of Mrs. Williams harmed other women by reducing their opportunity set, assuming I'm a man other women would marry.

Our lives are spent discriminating for or against one thing or another. In other words, choice requires discrimination. When we modify the term with race, sex, height, weight or age, we merely specify the choice criteria.

Imagine how silly, not to mention impossible, life would be if discrimination were outlawed. Imagine engaging in just about any activity where we couldn't discriminate by race, sex, height, weight, age, mannerisms, college selection, looks or ability; it would turn into a carnival.

I've sometimes asked students if they believe in equal opportunity in employment. Invariably, they answer yes. Then I ask them, when they graduate, whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them. Most often they answer no; they plan to discriminate against certain employers. Then I ask them, if they're not going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what's fair about requiring an employer to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?

Sometimes students will argue that certain forms of discrimination are OK but it's racial discrimination that's truly offensive.

That's when I confess my own history of racial discrimination. In the late 1950s, whilst selecting a lifelong mate, even though white, Mexican, Indian, Chinese and Japanese women might have been just as qualified as a mate, I gave them no chance whatsoever. It appears that most Americans act identically by racially discriminating in setting up marriage contracts.

According to the 1992 Census Bureau, only 2.2 percent of Americans are married to people other than their own race or ethnicity.

You say, "All right, Williams, discrimination in marriage doesn't have the impact on society that other forms of discrimination have."

You're wrong again. When there is assortive (non-random) mate selection, it heightens whatever group differences exist in the population. For instance, higher IQ individuals tend toward mates with high IQs. High-income people tend to mate with other high-income people.

It's the same with education. To the extent there is a racial correlation between these characteristics, racial discrimination in mate selection exaggerates the differences in the society's intelligence and income distribution. There would be greater equality if there weren't this kind of discrimination in mate selection.

In other words, if high-IQ people were forced to select low-IQ mates, high-income people forced to select low-income mates, and highly educated people forced to select lowly educated mates, there would be greater social equality. While there would be greater social equality, the divorce rate would soar since gross dissimilarities would make for conflict.

Common sense suggests that not all discrimination should be eliminated, so the question is, what kind of discrimination should be permitted? I'm guessing the answer depends on one's values for freedom of association, keeping in mind freedom of association implies freedom not to associate.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I think it goes without saying that Walter Williams is full of ****. The notion that the "good old days" were particularly "good" has been effectively refuted by others in this thread: there's little reason to repeat their arguments. But, as Foxfyre correctly notes, Williams actually has a more general conclusion that hasn't really been addressed here:

Walter Williams wrote:

Policemen and laws can never replace customs, traditions and moral values as a means for regulating human behavior. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. Our increased reliance on laws to regulate behavior is a measure of how uncivilized we've become.

In other words, is a reliance on laws rather than "customs, traditions, and moral values" a sign of cultural degeneracy?

I'll just mention here that, just on the facts, Williams is still full of ****. If Williams thinks that people in "the good old days" didn't rely on law just as much as on customs, traditions, and moral values, he's fooling himself. Racial discrimination, to take one of those "moral values" from the rosy-hued past, relied heavily on the state's enforcement of racially discriminatory laws. Furthermore, racists depended upon the overt and tacit complicity of state authorities to enforce the cultural norms of bigotry. And the same was true of discrimination against women and gays and pretty much any racial, ethnic, or religious minority in this nation.

But perhaps Williams is arguing more along the lines that people in the "good old days" didn't rely on laws for more minor things. For instance, Williams is evidently is a big fan of "shunning" as a means of social control.

Walter Williams wrote:

You might be tempted to charge, "Williams, you're a prude!" I'd ask you whether high rates of illegitimacy make a positive contribution to a civilized society. If not, how would you propose that illegitimacy be controlled? In years past, it was controlled through social sanctions like disgrace and shunning.

Ah yes, how Williams longs for those halcyon days when we got to place a big red "A" on the shawl of any woman of questionable morals, rather than putting her picture on the cover of People magazine. But why is that necessarily more "advanced" than our current cultural norms, where illegitimacy is regarded more as a social problem to be addressed than a moral one to be denounced?

Likewise, Williams laments the fact that we no longer keep our doors unlocked or sleep in the parks on summer nights. That, however, has less to do with customs and moral values (after all, theft and assault weren't invented in the 1960s) than on a complex variety of social factors. Frankly, given the choice between sleeping in the park or having air conditioning in my home, I'd gladly opt for the latter, and cultural values be damned.

So I'm not at all clear why a reliance on law rather than custom is a mark of "how uncivilized we've become." Certainly, it is the triumph of law over custom that has allowed member of minority groups, such as Walter Williams, to come as far as they have in our modern society. And in the case of Williams, I'm willing to take the bad with the good.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

In other words, is a reliance on laws rather than "customs, traditions, and moral values" a sign of cultural degeneracy?

I see Customs, Traditions and Moral Values as a form of "Laws", that simply aren't codified by an enforcement agency. Society tends to "enforce" Customs, Traditions and Moral Values simply by restricting the ease of which a person failing to following a set of values is allowed to interact with the society. They are like "soft laws".

I keep feeling that the movement toward "hard laws" instead of "soft laws" has more to do with the complexity of modern society than it has to do with any moral breakdown. As the number of cultures we have to interact with and the rapid movement of people to/from communities increases it only makes sense that more detailed laws would need to be implemented.

0 Replies

Much of the force of "custom and morality" upon which social control such as Williams lauds depends is community. Williams might as well decry the breakdown of a sense of community. However, that would still be ignoring the reality of continuous social change, whether or not one were willing to refer to it as progress. When freed men and women left the rural South and moved to the North to seek work and a sense of actual freedom, they often met hate and violence--there were many "race riots" and incidents of violence in the North after the American civil war, and blacks ended up living in segregated neighborhoods (the Urban League was created after a lynching of a black man which took place in Springfield, Illinois, if i recall correctly).

But two things have been happening in our society which mitigate against that continuing "sense of community." One is the population shift. Although agricultural production remains important to the American economy, that production is increasingly not the result of family farming, and the "center of gravity" of our population has shifted from rural/small town to urban. The second factor which might not immediately recommend itself to the observer is the success of civil rights. Blacks can now be more mobile, in the sense of living outside traditional black neighborhoods. Certainly things aren't rosy in terms of race in our country, but blacks, women, Hispanics, homosexuals and a great many other people have much more opportunity to make a decent living than they did when Mr. Williams was a young man, and therefore much more opportunity to live where they will, and where they can afford. The mobility, both in the abstract, economic sense and the concrete sense of "restless" motion of individuals in our society may well have broken down or destroyed the "ties that bound" the communities of the past. I suspect that people in urban neighborhoods are not just strangers to one another because of the impersonal nature of urban neighborhoods, but because of the increased mobility of the population. I was born in what was then the second largest Irish city in the world, in the literal sense of the number of the people there who had been born in Ireland. That borough is now black and Hispanic, and i doubt that there are very many Irish living there now. Any sense of community the people have there is certainly not founded on the commonalities which obtained there 60 years ago.

The world changes, it moves on (once again, whether or not we consider it to be "progress")--Williams is crying for the good old days, and the good old days have never existed.

0 Replies

Here's a a different view of things

What bothers me most about this article is that they talk about the 1970's as though they were the "good old days", but that's when I was a teenager. I still remember a time when the "good old days" were the 1940's, not the 1970's. Something tells me that this perception of "good old days" has been going on since humans first reminisced about their childhood.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

You think Williams' article was describing the 70's as the 'good old days?" I didn't get that at all. I think he was describing the 40's and 50's with the values that held it together then beginning to break down in the counter culture revolution of the 60's.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

There was a reason that we had the 60's.

I would choose to live in the 70's over the 50's any day.

0 Replies

When I was a kid in gradeschool and middle school, we kids would take off on Saturday morning and have the run of the neighborhood. We were supposed to be within earshot when we were called for lunch and we were expected to be back in our own yard at dark unless we got permission to be down the street in somebody else's yard. Our parents did not worry in the least that anybody would molest us, offer us illegal substances, snatch us, or murder us. It was safe to talk to strangers and give them directions to so-and-so's house. Serious illegal activity was so rare that almost any crime bigger than jaywalking was a local scandal. A murder, rape, or assault and battery was almost unheard of and when such did occur, it sent shock waves through several surrounding counties.

The worst thing us kids ever did was sneak Ginger Ale behind the school bleachers--we thought it was an adult beverage--and we sometimes stole a watermelon. The farmers always planted a row or two on purpose for the kids to steal.

By the 80's, however, parents were afraid to let their kids out of their sight. We were at a football game in a tiny little town east of Albuquerque one night when my great niece, age 4, did briefly get out of our sight. When we realized we couldn't see her, everybody panicked. I still remember the terrible fear in the pit of my stomach. Her mother was beside herself. She was found unharmed, but for several long minutes it was a terrible feeling.

I just can't see how that is better.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I now have a four year old daughter and two older sons (one still in high school). I am not particularly worried even though we live in the city. My sons had the run of the neighborhood (they had to tell us where they were going and when they would get back) and even had the ability to take the train to visit relatives or friends.

I talk to my kids about sex and drugs. I like the fact that I can openly speak to them about things that are important (like responsibility). I imagine in the fifties this would have been much harder to do. Openness is important to me-- I try to teach my kids real values, judgement and critical thinking rather than just conformity.

When I was growing up in the 60's and 70's, I knew about pot (and never tried it as a kid) and sex (which I had tried less than I wanted). This knowledge didn't it didn't hurt me-- in fact it meant that I learned to make responsible decisions based on facts rather than just bowing to ignorance and social pressure. I even remember finding a playboy as a preteen-- my grandmothers dire predictions of my impending loss of sight were apparently exaggerated.

The benefits of modern life are clear. I am thrilled that my daughter has so much opportunity open to her. I am happy that my kids have rights they never would have had.

Kids are safer from molesters than ever before-- simply because molesters thrive on secrecy and shame. In the fifties, like so many things, sexual abuse would be hidden under the rug. I have started talking to my daughter already (in an age appropriate way) making it clear that she should tell us what is going on in her life and trust that we will listen to her and accept her no matter what happens.

My kids are dark skinned-- the progress on racial issues is obviously important to us. For that matter, my marriage would have been illegal in many states in the 40's and 50's.

So far none of my kids have told me they are homosexual, but even the fact that they would no longer be forced to live a lie is comforting.

Keeping kids ignorant and controlling them through social pressure and fear does not appeal to me.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I was referring to the article I posted, not Williams' article. The link is in my post.

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

Ah okay. I see that now. Interesting perspective. I wonder if he is right that children are no less safe now than they were in the 70'swhen mykids were growing up? I know that they were more free than kids these days are, but less free than when I was growing up. But is that out of necessity or perception? The article you posted puts the blame on perception.

I think it is natural for everybody to think of their own era as the best of times, while many who didn't experience it buy into the hype that somebody else's era was the worst of times. Look at how many people here are condemning the 40s and 50s as a time of oppression, denial, scarlet letters etc. and insist that things weren't as great as those who experienced them remember? Look at how many who assume that the same stuff happened 'back then' but was just swept under the rug. I don't think so. Murder was an extremely rare thing in New Mexico anywhere when I was a kid. Now it happens about once a week here in Albuquerque alone. I can't imagine a need for a Megan's law or Amber plan when I was a kid. Now it is commonplace.

When we were kids, our family thought nothing of pulling off to the side of the road when the driver(s) got sleepy, making a pallet on the ground, and sleeping under the stars for a few hours. We were not afraid to do that. Do you think there are any normal families who would dare do that almost anywhere now?

I do question the article as being accurate that the crime rate is no higher now than it was in the 60's and 70's. This data would suggest otherwise:
http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm
(I couldn't find any comparable statistics earliers than 1960)

I'm not suggesting that all was rosy and hunky dory when I was a kid because of course it wasn't--the 40s and 50s were being lived by imperfect people just as the modern era is. But if you take all those side issues out of it and focus on specifically what Williams was talking about, there is much to commend in the 50's and the negatives weren't quite as blatant as some here seem to want to believe. The women of my parent's generation were neither oppressed nor subjugated to anybody and many accomplished remarkable things. Was there complete equality, no. But there were some virtues then that are less so now.

Oh well. I think it is an interesting topic anyway.

3 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Murder was an extremely rare thing in New Mexico anywhere when I was a kid. Now it happens about once a week here in Albuquerque alone. I can't imagine a need for a Megan's law or Amber plan when I was a kid. Now it is commonplace.

Do you think that the official New Mexico crime statistics ("New Mexico Law Enforcement Agency Uniform Crime Reports") are giving wrong data? (I'm sure, you've taken into consideration the different number in population now and then.)

Foxfyre wrote:

(I couldn't find any comparable statistics earliers than 1960)

Besides the internet there's still the published book as source Wink

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

The statistics I linked show that crime has increased by far greater percentages than the population has increased. I don't know what you mean about the 'wrong data'. I couldn't find any crime statistics for the 1940s and 50s for New Mexico either. If you found USA crime statistics prior to 1960, please post them.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

I was referring to New Mexico - same source as yours.

As for previous data: these are printed, to by found even in our university's library (but I can't post them due to copyright/user agreement reasons with my online account).

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

I was specifically talking about the crime of sexual abuse-- which is much more likely to be committed by a relative or trusted friend than by a stranger.

The way to combat sexual abuse is to remove the secrecy. If children are not afraid to talk about sex, then they are far less vulnerable to being manipulated and far more likely to tell their parents or a responsible adult that they are being abused.

In the 50's, with the stigma and general uptightness about sex, abuse was much less likely to be reported-- meaning kids who were being abused were far more vulnerable.

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

Sorry. I was a kid in the 50's and there were no inhibitions of any kind on reporting anybody who was behaving improperly. And we did. And I think we had a much better sense of what was right and wrong too, and we were perhaps more naturally inhibited from getting into compromising situations just because of a strong sense of right and wrong. Prudish? Perhaps some of it was. But in a day where abortion was mostly illegal and the schools would never pass out (or even discuss) condoms, teenage pregnancy and/or STD was extremely rare and, as I said, we were safe.

Whatever your personal sensibilities are, it is difficult to knock the record.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

Whatever your personal sensibilities are, it is difficult to knock the record.

irony in its finest form

1 Reply

LAW VS. MORAL VALUES

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know