| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
What about Nat Friedman?What about Nat Friedman?Posted Jan 7, 2007 20:16 UTC (Sun) by liljencrantz (subscriber, #28458)In reply to: What about Nat Friedman? by BrucePerens Parent article: Jeremy Allison Has Resigned from Novell to Protest MS Patent Deal (Groklaw)
I strongly disagree with your assertion that the fact that the law is not inherently moral is a bug.
My guess is that when you say you want 'ethical laws' you mean laws that correspond with your ethics, but ethics are inherently subjective. Large parts of the earths population considers various actions like the use of prophylaxis, the owning of property, using surgery to correct life threatening medical conditions, working on certain days of the week, eating certain foodstuffs or homosexuality unethical. My aunt, who is hardcore catholic, probably thinks it is unethical _not_ to eat fish on fridays. Luckily she doesn't want to force her views on ethics on the rest of the world. Unfortunatly, the rest of the world doesn't feel that way. Various attempts to encode the ethics of a specific grouping (usually a religion) into common law is a widespread disease, both today and five centuries ago.
I want a world where law is as far removed from morals as possible, and instead focuses on providing a basic framework for different people with different customs and morals to meet and interact with each other as equals. This framework should only consist of fundamental rights like the rights to life liberty and propery. Anything above that should be up to the individual.
(Log in to post comments)
|
|
||||||||||||