Belle Knox Duke student |
I've written often about the word
moral. I've talked about how
it is too often used to support an argument. The definition of moral
changes along with ideology and regional location. If you ask a
leftist to to give an example they will likely tell you that that it
is immoral for someone to be obese. If you ask a conservative about
sex outside of marriage they will tell you it is immoral, even if
that marriage was sanctified by a government representative versus a
minister.
Morality
has always been a social institution. In the USA, what is considered
immoral in the south is often more accepted in the north – or
west. In America's past it wasn't immoral to marry a 12 year old
girl, while in today’s society that is absolutely unacceptable. In
those times life was about surviving. Male children were thought to
be more capable at cutting firewood and plowing fields, while too
often the female child was seen as simply another mouth to feed.
Female
children were married off at or near puberty. Sometimes much older
males would pay a diary for the right to marry that child. Arranged
marriages are still happening around the world. Some of it might be
for the same reasons as in our past, while in many cases it happens
simply because it is now a tradition – just the way things are
done.
Social
standards evolve for a variety of reasons. In the modern American
society arranged marriages are seen as barbaric. In today’s world sex outside of marriage is much more common. In the not so
distant past sex for women outside of marriage was forbidden while
for men it was simply frowned upon. This is likely because it is the
female that often bore the consequences for these liaisons. Out of
wed births often stigmatized the woman and was too often a financial
burden that was impossible to overcome. These pregnancies were also a
barrier to future relationships. In short, the price for sex outside
of marriage was too high. Because of science out of wedlock births
are less likely to occur. While the financial burden for out of
wedlock births are still a problem, it doesn't carry the social
stigma of the past.
There
is a major change that happened in modern societies. Throughout
history it was society that decided these matters. This is how it
should be because what might be a social problem for one village,
might not be for another. Most modern Americans want government to
control moral positions. History tells us that many thought Africans
were not human, which made it acceptable to enslave them.
Many
think that if the majority feels something isn't socially acceptable
then it should be banned by government. There are those who would
gladly imprison gays like it's done other countries around the world.
Thankfully, those people are not the majority in the USA. It is for
this reason morality can't be a democratic decision.
The
talk of today is about Duke University student, Belle Knox, who
decided to pay her way through college by becoming a porn actress.
You can imagine how her life has been transformed by this becoming
common knowledge. Many conservatives are condemning her for this
choice. This might not the the best life decision she will ever make,
but it is one that should at least be noted as economically wise. She
will graduate from a top university with no debt and with the
satisfaction of not having taken money she didn't earn.
Belle
might have found an unexpected benefit from her choice that could
possibly end her short porn career. She is becoming a media darling,
not because of her job, but for her political awareness. She is a
self professed libertarian forced by the system to be Republican. I
can tell her she has a lot of company.
If
American social standards hadn't evolved she would likely have been
baring children by the time she was 15. Belle is teaching America
that a few cannot sit in moral judgment of the world. Her decision
could ultimately be a huge mistake, but it is one she is allowed make
in a free society. We often learn best through our mistakes. If we
let government control every aspect of our lives where small mistakes
land us in prison or jail, then we might not learn the ultimate
lesson that life can often teach. It has become clear prison and
fines do little to nothing for changing social standards. Drug
prohibition has done nothing to lower crime, and might have even been
behind its increase. As drug laws have began to relax, violent crime
has also decline.
Drugs,
prostitution, fatty foods, salt on food, and gay marriage are all
social issues that moralist want government to control or ban. The
moralist are on both ends of the political spectrum. In my political ideology chart I placed libertarianism on the far right. If what I
just said is true then libertarianism might be center or moderate.
It's
expected when leftist want government control of everything they
dislike, but it seems out of place when those calling for less
government want the same thing, except in different areas. The most
used argument for government control is that certain actions by
people indirectly effect everyone else. If this is the case, then the
government should just give us a daily list of activities that's
acceptable because so many things we do indirectly effects others. It
is for this reason we can only allow government to control things
that directly affect others, such as crimes like murder and robbery.
No one will argue that either of those things should be allowed –
except for the anarchists.
I
doubt you can find people on either the left or right that don't
believe government is corrupt and can be bought by the highest
bidder. Imagine a country where control of your daily decisions,
something as simple as the food you eat, can be bought by the highest
bidder. The highest bidder can make sure a dangerous drug is
approved by the FDA. The next time you ask government to control
morality, another liberty is lost. All rights are innate, even the
ones with which you disagree. Government can only remove rights, they
cannot be given.
No comments:
Post a Comment