I apologize again for not having continued to engage on the Dr Seuss thread, and for not yet having engaged on the libraries and culture thread. I will get back to them, but if I do so too intensively, and especially too quickly, I get hot and bothered, generating more heat than light.
But now I want to ask a question for all and sundry: what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public moraity? On what basis, and how should this be determined?
Address your query to the Taliban and the Iranian morality police.
Quote from: nebo113 on January 11, 2023, 05:42:37 AM
Address your query to the Taliban and the Iranian morality police.
Isn't "Drag Queen Story Time" an attempt to enforce (or at least encourage) the moral uplift of acceptance and inclusion?
Are you referring specifically to sexual morality?
To a broader enforcement of ethical standards? Governments in general have laws against things like theft and murder, at a minimum. They usually also outlaw things like fraud. Some say they should police things that are deemed to be discrimination stemming from bias, and "hate speech," however these may be defined.
Are you referring to governmental efforts to nudge people in a socially desirable direction--things like tax incentives to give to charity or buy electric vehicles, rules about recycling, etc. that many would like to see?
We could get into all sorts of things on a thread like this.
I would say that historically the best method is peer pressure. Boycotts, scorn, ostracism and opprobrium can do wonders to keep people in line.
Quotewhat role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public morality?
None at all, for God's sake! Morality is not legislated.
Morality develops spontaneously, if we let it, and efficient morality is voluntarily adopted and spreads. Various religions adopted or propagated various moralities. Today, we see those that have survived so far.
In recent times technological improvements in health and reproductive control have made parts of traditional morality seem beside the point. That may be painful for some to watch, but it is almost certainly beneficial.
Any attempts at centralized control of morality will surely lead into dead ends.
Quote from: apl68 on January 11, 2023, 06:39:52 AM
Are you referring specifically to sexual morality?
To a broader enforcement of ethical standards? Governments in general have laws against things like theft and murder, at a minimum. They usually also outlaw things like fraud. Some say they should police things that are deemed to be discrimination stemming from bias, and "hate speech," however these may be defined.
Are you referring to governmental efforts to nudge people in a socially desirable direction--things like tax incentives to give to charity or buy electric vehicles, rules about recycling, etc. that many would like to see?
We could get into all sorts of things on a thread like this.
I think this hits the nail on the head.
We could easily discuss the merits and demerits of natural law theories vs. legal positivism, but that may not be what kaysixteen has in mind.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 10, 2023, 11:35:13 PM
But now I want to ask a question for all and sundry: what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public moraity? On what basis, and how should this be determined?
I agree with apl68. This seems so vague that it could mean anything. The last time I checked, at my local library, patrons must wear clothes, could not openly fornicate or use drugs, had to speak in a relatively low voice, cannot destroy library property,must close the bathroom door and flush the toilets, and should not reshelve items themselves. All of these reflect socially acceptable norms of behavior--i.e., morality. Most librarian patrons (and librarians, I assume) would not be happy if these norms were removed (although of course norms change over time). My library actually has a security guard who will point out if patrons are violating these norms.
On the other hands, patrons are generally free to read what they want, write what they want using the computers, and think what they want when they stare into space. Most library patrons (and librarians) would probably be upset if libraries were to enforce a particular view of literature, politics, etc. Of course, the idea that libraries should be places of intellectual freedom is itself a moral idea.
So what do you really want to ask? Whether schools and libraries should enforce certain a political morality? Whether they should advocate a particular view of sexual morality? Or whether schools should teach people that murder is wrong? That libraries should oppose racism?
Eventually libraries will go completely electronic (at least as far as books go). At that point, nobody will have to look at the "immoral" books if they don't want to, and you can add all sorts of online identification for people to be able access stuff. Win-win unless you think we'll all be wiped off the face of the Earth because a few of us might be reading a book about a gay couple. I am willing to risk it.
Whatever you think the government's rightful purpose in controlling us is, kay, will not be what the rest of us think. You will get mad.
George Orwell, Albert Camus, and Arthur Koestler maybe have your answers.
You are maybe experiencing some sort of psychological problem?
Quote from Ratguy:
Quote
nobody will have to look at the "immoral" books if they don't want to
No one has to look at them now. For some, however, just their very existence is unendurable. How dare people experience sexuality!!!!
I might well get mad, as I confess I have done here when my religious views, and advocacy for them, makes me accused of mental illness. Or when academics, who should have reasonable standards of evidentiary analysis and critical thinking, cite links to bizarro propaganda that denies the manifestly obvious teaching of the scriptures regarding sexual morality, but that is actually not what I was trying to get at admittedly very late last night, when I wrote up this question rather too quickly. So let me elaborate and rephrase:
I am not advocating anything like mandatory attendance at religious worship, but I am advocating for taking reasonable steps, both in law, and as Anselm wisely put it, through moral suasion, to foster real moral uplift and basic standards of ethics and behavior in our increasingly disordered, chaotic, and culturally disintegrating culture. Obviously sexual mores are part of this, but there are many more aspects to this as well. Take drugs. Drugs suck. Really, they do, and anyone who actually has to live and work in a decrepit community full of junkies and whose growth industry seems to be legalized weed shops, could much more easily set aside liberal stuck in the 60s attitudes towards their use, and see the real destruction they cause, *especially towards children. A friend of mine and her husband are trying to foster to adopt a 9yo boy, whose junkie parents lost custody when he was less than 6 months old, but are being stymied by silly family reunification policies that fly in the face of the reality that the bio parents are still using, and should have no more contact, let alone rights, to the child. Beyond this, other issues come to mind, such as easy no-fault divorce, normalization of illegitimacy, acceptance of what apl rightly calls predatory capitalism, well... I could go on and on. So what concrete steps could be taken to address these issues?
If there were simple concrete steps that could be taken, we would be taking them. But the fact is that such things are far from simple, as modern life — and life across the ages — has proven. And for those who think they have a clear idea on what a moral life would look like, actually living that life is not easy, as millennia of experience has also proven.
There's also the fact that to take society-wide steps to encourage certain kinds of behavior, the society has to have a consensus about what the desirable behavior looks like. And a consensus on the steps that should be taken to get there. We are very far from having agreement on either of those essential things.
Some cultures do have a greater emphasis on "behaving in ways that benefit the culture at large rather than just one's individual self." I would say that some Eastern cultures, such as Japan and Korea, and the Scandinavian cultures are particularly good at that worldview. But as far as I can tell, the ways in which government and legislation foster that worldview grow out of the culture's preceding worldview, rather than causing it.
American culture is so individualistic, to an extreme, that I don't think we have much chance of fostering much of anything other than "I'll do things my own way and to hell with you."
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 09:46:48 PM
I might well get mad, as I confess I have done here when my religious views, and advocacy for them, makes me accused of mental illness. Or when academics, who should have reasonable standards of evidentiary analysis and critical thinking, cite links to bizarro propaganda that denies the manifestly obvious teaching of the scriptures regarding sexual morality, but that is actually not what I was trying to get at admittedly very late last night, when I wrote up this question rather too quickly. So let me elaborate and rephrase:
I am not advocating anything like mandatory attendance at religious worship, but I am advocating for taking reasonable steps, both in law, and as Anselm wisely put it, through moral suasion, to foster real moral uplift and basic standards of ethics and behavior in our increasingly disordered, chaotic, and culturally disintegrating culture. Obviously sexual mores are part of this, but there are many more aspects to this as well. Take drugs. Drugs suck. Really, they do, and anyone who actually has to live and work in a decrepit community full of junkies and whose growth industry seems to be legalized weed shops, could much more easily set aside liberal stuck in the 60s attitudes towards their use, and see the real destruction they cause, *especially towards children. A friend of mine and her husband are trying to foster to adopt a 9yo boy, whose junkie parents lost custody when he was less than 6 months old, but are being stymied by silly family reunification policies that fly in the face of the reality that the bio parents are still using, and should have no more contact, let alone rights, to the child. Beyond this, other issues come to mind, such as easy no-fault divorce, normalization of illegitimacy, acceptance of what apl rightly calls predatory capitalism, well... I could go on and on. So what concrete steps could be taken to address these issues?
The issue is there is no agreement on most of this. I don't think society has gone down hill as you do. In some waysz perhaps, but in others it has improved. I feel racism is better (still bad) than in the past, gender equality has come a long way, etc. It has drifted from your personal ideals, but in many ways I disagree that society is crumbling.
Likewise, I don't feel drugs are the scourge you do. The real harm is how we criminalize it, leading to most of the issues. When the population disagrees so fundamentally on what "proper" morals are, how could it ever be imposed?
Of course, what you really want is for everyone to accept and follow your personal moral code based on your specific interpretation of your religion. Not going to happen.
Quote from: jerseyjay on January 11, 2023, 05:52:18 PM
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 10, 2023, 11:35:13 PM
But now I want to ask a question for all and sundry: what role, if any, is there for the state to take legal actions to enforce public morality, and what steps should properly be taken by public institutions such as libraries and schools, and government agencies, to advance public moraity? On what basis, and how should this be determined?
I agree with apl68. This seems so vague that it could mean anything. The last time I checked, at my local library, patrons must wear clothes, could not openly fornicate or use drugs, had to speak in a relatively low voice, cannot destroy library property,must close the bathroom door and flush the toilets, and should not reshelve items themselves. All of these reflect socially acceptable norms of behavior--i.e., morality. Most librarian patrons (and librarians, I assume) would not be happy if these norms were removed (although of course norms change over time). My library actually has a security guard who will point out if patrons are violating these norms.
Those are excellent examples.
Quote
On the other hands, patrons are generally free to read what they want, write what they want using the computers, and think what they want when they stare into space. Most library patrons (and librarians) would probably be upset if libraries were to enforce a particular view of literature, politics, etc. Of course, the idea that libraries should be places of intellectual freedom is itself a moral idea.
So what do you really want to ask? Whether schools and libraries should enforce certain a political morality? Whether they should advocate a particular view of sexual morality? Or whether schools should teach people that murder is wrong? That libraries should oppose racism?
Well said.
In society, there are many positions where the
expectations are that people in those positions need to be able to not express their own opinions or let their opinions influence their professional behaviour. This includes:
- judges
- mediators
- marriage counselors
- election officials
(It
used to also include journalists and academics, but as "activism" took over, many in those fields see advancing their own opinions as their
mission.)
I can treat my neighbours with respect and dignity without knowing anything about their religious or political beliefs, sexual orientation, or a zillion other things. As long as I keep my dog out of their rose bushes, and we help each other dig out after a big snowstorm,
we don't have to decide how many things we agree on.Public servants, (including librarians), should perform their duties in as apolitical a manner as possible. As illustrated above, rules in public spaces should focus on what sort of
behaviour is required of
everyone to make the space easy for all to use. None of these rules are to endorse some sort of ideal of how people "should" act in
other spaces, just on what is
required in this one.
Quote from: Ruralguy on January 11, 2023, 06:26:24 PM
Eventually libraries will go completely electronic (at least as far as books go). At that point, nobody will have to look at the "immoral" books if they don't want to, and you can add all sorts of online identification for people to be able access stuff. Win-win unless you think we'll all be wiped off the face of the Earth because a few of us might be reading a book about a gay couple. I am willing to risk it.
Actually, libraries being in-person with physical books is generally seen as important to provide access to lower-income people. Electronic-only resources will always be disproportionately hard to access for poorer people.
Those who were forced into substandard schools because of the color of their skin might not agree with K16s notion of past moral glory.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 09:46:48 PM
I might well get mad, as I confess I have done here when my religious views, and advocacy for them, makes me accused of mental illness.
No. It is your apparent obsession with public morality that makes me wonder. We had another poster recently who was obsessed with political-morality.
Playing the victim only goes so far.
Nothing I have said or even implied suggests I support or have ever had any truck with Jim Crow, or advocate a return to any form thereof.
I think I will just focus on the scourge of drugs now. Exactly what would be gained by their legalization, even marijuana's, let alone anything harder, especially given what we know of how drugs ruin families, harm children, etc.?
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 12, 2023, 10:45:36 PM
Nothing I have said or even implied suggests I support or have ever had any truck with Jim Crow, or advocate a return to any form thereof.
I think I will just focus on the scourge of drugs now. Exactly what would be gained by their legalization, even marijuana's, let alone anything harder, especially given what we know of how drugs ruin families, harm children, etc.?
So you are talking drugs? Okay.
Beer is the usual gateway drug and alcoholism is the biggest single substance abuse (https://www.addictioncenter.com/addiction/10-most-common-addictions/#:~:text=1.,substance%20in%20the%20United%20States.) problem in our culture. Has been since I was an active alcoholic and drug addict.
Your earlier posts sure make it sound like you were taking about cultural control. Jim Crow is from another thread altogether, and I never thought you were an advocate for Jim Crow.
You okay?
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 12, 2023, 10:45:36 PM
Nothing I have said or even implied suggests I support or have ever had any truck with Jim Crow, or advocate a return to any form thereof.
I think I will just focus on the scourge of drugs now. Exactly what would be gained by their legalization, even marijuana's, let alone anything harder, especially given what we know of how drugs ruin families, harm children, etc.?
We have gone down this path before, but many ways. Most overdoses right now are from street drugs that are contaminated by more lethal compounds. A legal and regulated supply would prevent most of these from happening. That would save lives.
There are many other reasons, but that alone should be enough for a good Christian.
Again, the problem with achieving some kind of solution to the drug problem is that there is no general agreement on what the problem is. You, kaysixteen, seem to believe that drug-taking is a moral lapse, if I understand you correctly. Other people regard it as a social problem. Other people regard it as a psychological problem. Other people — and these are a substantial part of the American populace, judging from drug statistics — believe it is not a problem at all. Other people regard some drugs as a problem, others as not.
And drugs are a problem, what is the problem? Overdosing? Addiction? Retreating to "unreality"?
And if we define one or more of those as a problem, what does a solution look like? There are about a hundred different answers to that, many of them in conflict with each other.
But the bottom line is: before we work on anything, we have to agree to work on it. Our culture simply does not agree. I don't see any hope of it agreeing, on much of anything other than that you (probably) should not go naked to the library. Although I'm sure some would argue that you should be able to, on principle. Anything higher-stakes than that needs to achieve general agreement before the next step can be taken. I'm puzzled, kaysixteen, about why you don't see that "getting a majority to agree that this matters" is the necessary first step. And not happening.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 09:46:48 PM
I am advocating for taking reasonable steps[...]to foster real moral uplift and basic standards of ethics and behavior in our increasingly disordered, chaotic, and culturally disintegrating culture.
As a historian, I am not really sure I can agree with this view of contemporary society. Even taking United States society by itself (i.e., not comparing it to the Roman Empire, the Mongol invasion, the Third Reich, the Spanish conquest of America, the Belgian Congo, etc.) it does not seem obvious that our times are more "disordered, chaotic, and culturally disintegrating" than the norm. Compared to the lead-up to the Civil War or Reconstruction? To the Gilded Age? To the 1920s or 1930s? Even on the narrow issue of drugs, are things worse now than the 1970s, 1980s, or 1990s? I think it depends how you look. In the Second Great Awakening there was wide agreement that religion should play an important role in social life. But not on what role it should play: was God in favor of abolishing slavery or strengthening it? Both President Polk and John Brown believed they were doing God's work. And there were those who were outside this religious consensus, not to mention people like the American Indians or Mexicans who would probably take a very different view of U.S. society in the 1840s and 1850s.
Perhaps our society today seems more chaotic than it did in the post-WW2 period, but that again depends on a very particular vision of society. As has been pointed out, others (including many black people, women, gays, left-wing intellectuals) probably have a very different picture of the 1950s; the 1960s and 1970s might appear a low point in cultural order, but again, from different perspectives they might appear a high point.
As a historian, it seems to me important to understand that "morality" is a fluid and changing concept, and trying to depict one period (or society) as more moral than another is a not a historical perspective, but an ahistorical one.
Quote from: jerseyjay on January 13, 2023, 04:44:49 AM
As a historian, it seems to me important to understand that "morality" is a fluid and changing concept, and trying to depict one period (or society) as more moral than another is a not a historical perspective, but an ahistorical one.
This is precisely why public institutions should be sparing in their "moral" endorsements, since many of them will be viewed in retrospect as highly
immoral.
Quote from: kaysixteen on January 11, 2023, 09:46:48 PM
Take drugs. Drugs suck. Really, they do, and anyone who actually has to live and work in a decrepit community full of junkies and whose growth industry seems to be legalized weed shops, could much more easily set aside liberal stuck in the 60s attitudes towards their use, and see the real destruction they cause, *especially towards children.
If the argument is just that heroin and it's relatives have caused a lot of pain, suffering and social dysfunction, you aren't going to find many dissenters. (It's interesting how some drugs don't get any positive press even from the people who are actively heavy users. Lots of people who use Marijuana or LSD are interested in telling people that these are great things. I can't recall ever reading or hearing anybody who does a lot of heroin who seems to feel good about it.)
What's a "drug" exactly though? Only unprescribed substances? It was actually prescribed painkillers that jumpstarted the opioid crisis. Alcohol as someone mentioned can cause a lot of harm. What about caffeine, which is unquestionably a highly addictive substance. Or is it just that you want general social control over the drugs that used to be illegal and still are in many places? I'm not someone who has ever been particularly interested in weed personally, and I do drink alcohol very moderately, but I know a number of people whose lives and families would be in much better shape if they were heavy smokers instead of heavy drinkers.
Quote from: jerseyjay on January 13, 2023, 04:44:49 AM
As a historian, I am not really sure I can agree with this view of contemporary society. Even taking United States society by itself (i.e., not comparing it to the Roman Empire, the Mongol invasion, the Third Reich, the Spanish conquest of America, the Belgian Congo, etc.) it does not seem obvious that...
I'll just note that we can even disagree about exactly how much we disagree.