A Different Kind of Thinking
Over the last two years I have really started to question a lot of my thinking. Not so much as what I believe but my right to impose my thinking on others. This has brought up a number of interesting topics, and while has not changed my views on issues (not to be discussed in this post), changes what “should be done” about them.
An wonderful example is gay marriage. Many activist messages want to pass laws or amendments to enforce anti or pro positions. What is interesting about this, is that the laws part in the hetero marriage is ok the way it is.
My change in thinking made me question if there is a right to impose actions on others to enforce a view (pro or anti) on the entire public. This got me thinking, should there be any law involving hetero marriage?
Think about this, while it has been common practice for years, you need a “License” to get married. You have the option to file taxes “married” or not. What does any of this have to do with life long commitment between two people? You can get a name change without first marriage to someone with that name. Heck marriage done outside the country is observed when people move. It is more of a social creation, than a law one.
Many if not most couples still get married in religious gatherings, and from the point of view that religious authorities (god or gods) are always higher than the flesh (thus people and government, an creation of people), why do you need the law to accept you, if your god figures do?
I really think there are more issues out there where we have let laws and government have more power over natural rights, that we have just grown accustom to, but should maybe not be in place, in modified, or any form. I think this also solves (a natural rights) question to some of these topics, even if people don’t like it. The question of do I have the power (maybe) or the right (probably not) to impose via law (go to jail) beliefs of others.
Let me point out that people do and should have the right in their own forum promote, with reason their views. Not only do they have the right to express their ideas, they should. Competing ideas are needed for a best outcome and understanding, even if you end up not agreeing.
When thinking about the problem of “it has always been this way, therefor it is right”, or that “change is always good and for the better” I should paraphrase Ayn Rand, if you like her or not she got this right:
…[It is irrational to] defend a political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old. … It is irrational to use the new as a measure of value, to believe that a policy is good, merely because it is new.
Nice post Brock. I enjoyed reading about it. In my moral ethics class in order to dissect an issue further like the one you are describing, we would always try and find a similar moral agument that was concrete to compare it to.
I suppose an example of that would be; “Do you think marriage between a human and animal is ok?” Not relating anything to your post here, just trying to raise another question that is a bit more cut and dry to compare it to.