See, the thing is that I'd like to believe that some of these goals are better accomplished via moral persuasion rather than by the force of law. In the foie gras case, it's better to persuade the consumers that what they're doing is wrong than to legislate against it. Succeed in that and there will be very little force feeding of ducks.
It also prevents the legal system from producing a first precedent that allows you to outlaw the manufacture and consumption of a food because it's "cruel". As a committed omnivore with a taste for beef, pork, and the like, I'd rather hate to outlaw meat because raising animals for food is deemed inherently cruel by a group that's sufficiently well connected to get a law passed against it. Yes, I understand that this is a slippery slope argument, but an examination of laws and precedents will show that there are indeed times when you find yourself sliding off somewhere that the first person to set legal foot on the slope would never imagine.
The need for a law against a particular activity seems to me to be pretty directly connected to the magnitude and the immediacy of the harm to an individual by someone who would be breaking the proposed law. Thus, a law against murder is pretty easy to see the need for. (It's a shame that it isn't so obvious that we don't need the law, but that's humanity for you.)
So it's pretty obvious, to pick another example, that you shouldn't be driving when absolutely blotto from drink. But is .08 the right limit? (That's our limit here; yours may be different.) Wouldn't we all be safer if the limit was .001? Maybe so, but would we be enough safer for this to be a good idea?
There are groups that think so. I don't think I agree.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
no subject
Date: 2008-10-07 02:28 am (UTC)It also prevents the legal system from producing a first precedent that allows you to outlaw the manufacture and consumption of a food because it's "cruel". As a committed omnivore with a taste for beef, pork, and the like, I'd rather hate to outlaw meat because raising animals for food is deemed inherently cruel by a group that's sufficiently well connected to get a law passed against it. Yes, I understand that this is a slippery slope argument, but an examination of laws and precedents will show that there are indeed times when you find yourself sliding off somewhere that the first person to set legal foot on the slope would never imagine.
The need for a law against a particular activity seems to me to be pretty directly connected to the magnitude and the immediacy of the harm to an individual by someone who would be breaking the proposed law. Thus, a law against murder is pretty easy to see the need for. (It's a shame that it isn't so obvious that we don't need the law, but that's humanity for you.)
So it's pretty obvious, to pick another example, that you shouldn't be driving when absolutely blotto from drink. But is .08 the right limit? (That's our limit here; yours may be different.) Wouldn't we all be safer if the limit was .001? Maybe so, but would we be enough safer for this to be a good idea?
There are groups that think so. I don't think I agree.