You concede that laws can and should be used to improve society, but to decide what criteria makes one society better than another, you are applying a moral framework.

I can’t emphasize this enough. You *are* part of the problem. It’s not the New Atheists that are causing problems, its people like you.

Oh, and a sincere fuck off to you.

A fire storm of controversy erupted for her ‘audacity.’”

Baloney. The firestorm erupted because she publicly called-out people who dared to question her reading of a very ambiguous situation, as if they were inherently “part of the problem.” The same thing would happen in any cult–which is precisely what the New Atheist movement is.

I say that as a proud, militant atheist. You tool.

All this despite the fact that the US Military issued a statement that the marines in question were ignorant of the Nazi connection and the role the Nazi SS played in the Holocaust.

Although the original meaning of ‘moralis’ simply meant ‘proper custom’; centuries of Christian influence and indoctrination (irrevocably) alter it to ‘right, good and virtuous!’

I don’t believe in morality as such but ethics; that we should make laws that are consistent with empirical evidence…rational thinking…what I could call ethical thinking. I don’t mean to make a cheap sleight of hand changing what we often think of as the same word. I think ethical thinking is a method like the scientific method; it is not an answer but a method to derive answers. Ethical thinking, at least as a ‘good’ skeptic would apply it, should not be dogmatic, can evolved over time and point to truth but never claim to be it.

Here’s an example. When based in morality, we are stuck saying “pot smoking is immoral” forever because something is ether moral or not…there is not kinda moral. By using the “M” word, you create dogmatic law. Ethical thinking gets around this dilemma because its outcomes are not moral but the best answers so far…like science. So we can say in 1980 “pot smoking causes major harm to individuals and society” and yet as more research provides evidence it (may) not be harmful you; we can alter our law/statement “pot smoking causes little harm to self or state” without being inconstant or contradictory.

The article you pointed to though shows why we should not think in terms of morality because we are too culturally indoctrinated to think of this dogmatically. The article states “we don’t limit or take away the right to free speech just because a person’s exercise of that right led to deaths”, that is unethical because it ignores hate speech (for example). I can say unethical, because he is dogmatic in his views of rights thus not willing to change based on evidence. Anything asserted is dogmatic and innately unethical. The author praises Obama’s book “The audacity of hope” for saying “I propose that most law, either in spirit or letter, is nothing but encoded morality”; one must ask whose morality?

That is the heart of my criticism. Morality is, at least in our modern context, dogmatic; dogmatism (be it theological, political or skeptical) is innately wrong…regardless of the good it may incidentally do. Using the term morality, this necessarily must appeal to “belief” and the metaphysical, creating a field of competing equals. A Christian belief in ‘right or wrong’ based on the bible is no less sound than one based on the philosophy of ‘inalienable rights’; yet both may be invalid because they are assertions of belief not discovered knowledge.

So do I think law can make society better – yes; do I think we should use law to modify people’s behaviour to make society better – yes, but cautiously; do I think I should impose my moral belief on others through law – no, no matter how right I might think they are or how much incidental good they may do. What I would do is approach law like I do everything else; use the tool kit of skepticism (evidence, logic, reason and the scientific method) to create law ethically.
————————
Reference:
http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/10/morality-can-and-should-be-legislated.html

Note: In philosophy a sound argument must be true IF its premises are true. A valid argument is a sound argument whose premises ARE true.

I do think in some parts of the world, gender selection is a problem, and that legislation is warranted (maybe). As mentioned on the show, in parts of the world, gender-selection leads to the devaluation and discrimination of ‘born’ women.

Now, even if there is legislation, most people know that can mean very little to the lives of real people. In many countries laws on the books are seldom enforced thus creating technical protection while actually delivering no protection at all. This is evident in environmental laws in (re)emerging nations, Financial and corporate law in emerged nations and sadly gender-selection laws in China and India. This goes to the point though that not only legislation is needed (in some countries); the real victory will only be achieved via education (in all countries). That what need to change is not law but culture.

Of course having said this, am I perpetuating the ‘superiority’ of Canadian women? If women have reproductive rights here in Canada, how can I deny them to some women in India their own freedom and right of self-determination? Might not legislation which would really only be applicable to Indian and Chinese women (mainly immigrants at that), wound it not be discriminatory?

——————-
references:
Oakes Test: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_One_of_the_Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms#Oakes_test

Stats Can:
http://www12.statcan.ca/census-recensement/2006/as-sa/97-551/table/t4-eng.cfm

Please read the following articles and the story of one lone woman, Dr Mitu Khurana, who has bought a case against the hospital, her husband and in- laws, who illegally found out the sex of her unborn twin baby girls and then tried to force her to have an abortion. She has been given the run around for four long years by the Indian judicial system.

http://crybelovedcountry.com/2012/01/the-face-of-gendercide/

http://www.tehelka.com/story_main51.asp?filename=Ne040212Lack.asp

Can anyone give a voice to the 50 million girls that have been silenced forever? All Dr. Khurana is asking for is a chance to go before an unbiased judge and be heard. Can anyone give a voice to the 50 million murdered and raise the question with Indian officials as to why they are silently witnessing the elimination of a whole generation. The silence of the Indian officials tell the story and makes us wonder if Dr. Khurana and the 50 million dead baby girls will ever see justice done.

It just seems to me, having seen this issue fly past on the front cover of a Maclean’s magazine in the most racially insensitive possible terms a couple years ago, that the laws need to change if a woman can’t access an abortion and is forced to go to a life-endangering black market to get it. A doctor may not agree with her reasons, but what right does anyone have to put her in harm’s way instead of having a conversation about it while discussing informed consent and risks and alternatives?

Furthermore, it just seems to me that allowing someone to weigh the life-altering risks of abortion with their desire for a life with an intact child regardless of the SEX of that child (who knows, they could be transgender too, right?) is of higher priority than infantilizing mothers (with special emphasis given to Asian immigrant mothers).

After all, 89% of 65 women works out to 58 mothers who elected for an abortion when they found out their unborn baby was of the female sex. That’s over four years’ time? Wtf is wrong with this country when that is seen as a threat to the integrity of sex selection? Does the CMA even understand why an immigrant would want their firstborn to be a boy?

(I’m not really spamming you. That was all I said.)