Quote Originally Posted by coqauvin View Post
Gwahir, my only real concern with this idea of having legally enforced morality is - who chooses the morals that get upheld? It's pretty much the same stance that people will have on censorship - it needs to be done, because there is a line, but who determines where that line is, and what the punishment is for crossing it?
This is my problem with legally enforced morality. I remember having a discussion with you and Syme in the censorship thread, where I concluded that censorship derived from laws protecting victims is the only really legitimate use of censorship even if the acts contained therein are 'immoral'.

The rights issue I have trouble with because, in my mind, rights - positive freedoms - are only formalised negative freedoms, usually within a legal framework but sometimes within a religious framework. That is to say I reject the idea of positive rights given by nature. My belief is that freedom is inherent to each individual in nature, and he would defend those freedoms to the death if needs be; this is the basis for community and society and the creation of laws to protect those freedoms. At this point, there are one of two paths: do you legislate based on arbitrary moral codes - yes, moral codes are arbitrary - or do you protect the freedoms of individuals to choose their own moral paths. If the people are oppressed or coerced in any way, there is no room for morality since you follow the morals the state proscribes. Thus, in my mind, telling people that they have a positive right to another person's sandwich is the same as telling women they must all wear burkas; you are arbitrarily legally endorsing one person's right to another person's freedom, which therefore leaves no room for morality.