I consider myself a liberal and if I had to classify my political views, I would call them somewhat left of center. Given a liberal’s belief in freedom, equal rights for all and freedom of expression, it’s quite easy for me to form an opinion on a given situation. For example, I had no hesitation in saying that the Quran burning episode in the US was not a crime. Bad taste, yes. Crime no. Similarly, I don’t believe adultery should be a crime either. After all, it’s personal freedom and no where in the legal marriage contract does it prohibit extra marital sex. In fact, sex isn’t mentioned at all.
But there are a few cases that trouble me greatly as a liberal and I’m not very sure what is right/wrong. I was reminded of this when I was debating a complex topic on Sanjeev’s blog. These are cases which my liberal attitude says one thing, but my common sense tells me another. This confirms my belief that no “system” can ever blindly dictate complex issues such as governance. Each case is unique and though we can use ideology to guide our decision, the truth is never a simple matter.
So here are two cases which befuddle the liberal in me:
Should we allow people to have sex in public?
Public decency laws have always been in place no matter how progressive a country is. And the standards of public decency keep changing. In the 1900s for example, Annette Kellerman was arrested in Massachusetts just for wearing a swimsuit! Couples in India are regularly harassed for petty things like holding hands, though the Delhi High court held that kissing is an expression of love and arresting a couple for kissing was overstepping the boundary of what should be prohibited. Some people no doubt find kissing in public highly objectionable, but they need not look if they don’t want to right?
While I strongly feel that people should be able to do whatever they want as long as they don’t harm anyone else, how far do we take this? By this logic, a couple should be allowed to have sex in public as long as they don’t get in anyone’s way. People need not look if they don’t want to!
Now the bare principles of liberalism tell me that sexual acts in public should be legal. But my common sense tells me that we can’t legalize it. I’m not fully able to articulate why since logic tells me that there should be no problem.
After all, if we can allow a couple to hold hands and kiss in public, why not allow full fledged sex too?
That’s the first problem.
Should dangerous drugs be legalized?
As a liberal, I firmly hold that I have the right to harm myself if I want. It’s ridiculous that suicide is termed as an illegal act. What’s the punishment? Death? :D
The liberal in me says that it should be perfectly fine for a person to manufacture a murderously addictive drug such as methamphetamine in their home. After all, it’s their life and their body. In fact, selling the drug should be legal too – so long as it’s not sold to minors and the purchaser is fully aware of the risks. After all, we already have such a system in place for alcohol don’t we?
Again, though my liberal leanings tell me that crystal meth should be legal, my common sense tells me otherwise. Sure it’s dangerous, but a person should be allowed to drug themselves to death if they wish. Their body. And make the penalty for selling to children so high that professional dealers are discouraged and have effective law enforcement. Problem solved!
And yet it doesn’t sound right to me. Problem number two.
None of this means that liberalism isn’t probably the best we have so far – certainly more conducive to human growth and mental health than other ideologies. What it really means is that you can’t simply take a set of principles and blindly apply them like a mathematical theorem to determine what is the right thing to do. It means that reality is far more complex for its problems to be solved that easily.
Every situation requires an examination on its own merits. So though we can use ideologies such as liberalism as a useful guide, we have to be smart about it. We can’t worship any “system” that promises an instant and accurate resolution of complicated problems. If only life was that simple. It’s not. And our thinking shouldn’t be either.
Brings to mind Samuel Butler’s words in his awesome book “The way of all flesh:”
Extremes are alone logical, and they are always absurd, the mean is alone practicable and it is always illogical…. They say all roads lead to Rome, and all philosophies that I have ever seen lead ultimately either to some gross absurdity, or else to the conclusion already more than once insisted on in these pages …that sensible people will get through life by rule of thumb as they may interpret it most conveniently without asking too many questions for conscience sake. Take any fact, and reason upon it to the bitter end, and it will ere long lead to this as the only refuge from some palpable folly.
Interesting topic. I agree with you. I think both of these examples can be broken down into a variety of interesting questions. Take the public sex one for instance. Is it people seeing that is wrong? Or is it the act itself? What if someone is pulling a “When Harry Met Sally” and though they are not having sex you may think they are? Or what if they are being so discrete that they are and you don’t know about it?
Or with the example of drugs. For me the weird feeling about legalizing a dangerous drug comes from only asking that specific question. If I think about legalizing a drug while at the same time stepping up drug treatment and mental health programs, I personally feel much better about the idea of legalizing the drug.
It gets frustrating because problems such as these require comprehensive answers. Not the simple little black-and-white ones that most people want these days.
In reply to Adam Casto
I don’t think it’s a question of whether the public seeing sex is “wrong.” Uncomfortable may be the word…but then what if a lot people feel uncomfortable if a couple merely holds hands? Or a mullah feels uncomfortable if they see a woman wearing jeans?
It’s certainly not a simple question…
Hmmm… I have seen each one of my domestic helpers going through hell, financially supporting alcoholic and abusive husbands, completely addicted to alcohol (and I am sure sometimes drugs though they don’t admit it), and raising their children by doing dishes etc.
I can’t see drugs (or alcohol) as merely suicidal. If the man died the family would be free from the expense of his addictions and from drug-abuse related violence and abuse, but drugs/alcohol or any addiction, lead to a lot of other problems. One maid (I blogged about her) sold everything to pay ‘fine’ (bail?) to the police when her husband was involved in killing of a man in a drunken brawl. So drugs involve more then harming one’s health, many other crimes too are related to drug abuse. Alcohol abuse too actually, but somehow we accept alcohol as something that has ‘always been there’, so we feel it’s okay to let it continue to ruin lives, public spaces and families.
In reply to Indian Homemaker
True…in the case of drugs at least it’s also an enabler for a huge number of related crimes, not to mention the addictive factor takes over one’s personality and one has no control after that.
I think the liberals can’t have sex in public because everyone around is not of the same ideology as them. For example, twenty years back if you had asked a woman to hold hands in public she might have been reluctant to do even that. Or kiss, maybe. But in today’s youth we see that holding hands is very normal. Some even don’t hesitate to kiss. That’s because in the past according to the “general mindset” holding hands or kiss in public was not normal, so the couple desiring to do it would not feel comfortable doing it. They feel against it. Call it inner voice telling not to do it. But actually, this discomfort arises from subconsciously being aware of the prevailing mindset.
Let’s take today’s example only. If you go to some nude beach you will see people lying without cloths very freely. But the same people will not go nude on a local beach. They will not feel comfortable there. The same thing’s happening. We feel safe and comfortable doing something when it’s accepted by the majority surrounding us at the time.
That’s one thing. Another thing why sex is probably never going to be accepted that way is because of the way we are all wired with intense sexual desire and attraction mechanism. I think it very unlikely that we will ever outgrow this natural mechanism and NOT get sexually aroused when seeing an attractive person of the opposite sex, that too nude and in the act of sex already! So it’s kind of disturbing to the mind. And will always remain so. That means, the “general mindset” will never accept this, for the good enough reason that it’s disturbing. Even the not-looking requires effort and it doesn’t prevent the disturbance from happening in such case! So if the “general mindset” is not becoming adept to it then the liberals will never feel comfortable doing it.
That said, on the nude beaches if it is okay to make love in the open than that’s because there everybody is (or at least “can”) do the same, so the distraction won’t be harmful. People are already in that mood. Or at least they are already expecting to see it. But the same happening on a roadside and distracting passersby who are heading for office, or school, or work… Haha… It’s harmful.
This is what I could think. I don’t know how convincing it is.
In reply to Darshan Chande
Good points Darshan. But the thing about getting aroused doesn’t really stand up. After all, there’s no law saying we can’t eat tasty food in front of a hungry person on the road. Such an act might certainly be in very bad taste, but not illegal…
There is also something to be said about your point regarding expectation. But should that be sufficient reason to criminalize something?
In reply to bhagwad
First, I don’t really believe that laws are (or even can be) perfect. Because after all, there’s nothing right or wrong in the universe, taking the absolute perspective. What we categorize as “wrong” through the laws is but our own human notion based on our purpose of living “meaningful” and orderly life. So I won’t comment on whether something should be “criminalized” here.
However, when I say that having sex in public will never become a “general mindset” for the reason I gave still stands. You’re right, it’s not called a crime to eat tasty food in front of a hungry person. That’s because in that case “the degree of deviation” from the “general mindset” is very less. That act doesn’t create disturbance for many people. So, this behavior is accepted by the “majority” (hence, become a general mindset). Somewhat on the same lines I would say, if I run over a dog with my car killing him, I may not be punished by the law (at least I can easily escape it and no one will care!) Why? You may find this example out of place but see it’s not about killing dog or man. It’s about my rash driving. If my driving is so rash that I hit a dog, then tomorrow I may hit a small child too! What if it was a small child and not a dog? Then it would have become a huge crime! So just by changing the object hit the degree of crime changes? Shouldn’t it be the action itself that’s punished? So you see, killing dog or killing a man are basically the same crime. The crime is rash driving. But because killing of dog does not make many people uneasy, it’s won’t be criminalized (or not to the same degree as killing a man.) So it’s sort of accepted in the “general mindset”. Whereas killing of man is not. So the law has criminalized it. The basic idea is to not create uneasiness and panic in the society through our behavior.
The difference between eating tasty fool in front of hungry, and having sex in public is just like that. Fundamentally, both the acts are same. But which will be barred by the law will depend on how much the act deviates from “general mindset”. How much uneasiness it creates for public.
Now why the public sex so deviates from the “general mindset” is I think I have said in the previous comment only. We are naturally wired with intense sexual instinct and attraction. And from Nature’s perspective reproduction being the most important life activity (after survival) this mechanism is very strongly active. That makes it way more difficult to “govern” it then governing other normal desires. In “subtle ways”, it almost governs the mind, rather. That’s why.
Bhagwad. These are interesting questions. But I would like to take the debate a step further.
What are the consequences of legalising sex in public? Or legalising drugs? Some people may feel offended in the first case and some people might harm themselves (and perhaps a few others) in the second case. But doesn’t that happen already?
On the other hand, what are the consequences of “banning”, for the lack of any better term, public sex and drugs? The consequences are blatant projections of double-standards. What stops me then (I will assume the role of a conservative for a second) from asking the government to ban women wearing jeans because it offends my sensibilities? Or from demanding a ban on cigarettes and alcohol?
If you remember I had said sometime ago that I wasn’t sure on the subject of gun ownership. I have since come to accept that people should be free to own weapons for personal protection. I might get killed by one of those guns but I would at least not have to live a life of a hypocrite :)
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Ashish, I agree. Which is why I don’t call myself a “liberal” – since when one identifies with a group, they must follow its rules to the bitter end. And as Samuel Butler said, applying a limited set of rules to a situation to the bitter end can only lead to disaster. Life is more complicated and deserves more effort than just applying a set of rules blindly.
So let me ask you. If you were the prime minister of the country with a comfortable majority, would you legalize all drugs no matter how harmful and also legalize sex in any public place with no restrictions? Let me know what you would do and your reasons.
I think the assumption that only governments know what’s best for people and the people on their own can’t think for themselves is very patronising and condescending.
I don’t think that people will queue up to buy drugs or have an orgy on the beach just because the government thinks it is okay for them to do so. But to tell someone who wants to buy a drug or have sex in public that they can’t do so is unfair and illiberal.
Besides, by banning drugs, we are not solving any problems in the first place. The drug market is still alive and kicking and the ban simply sends them underground, which creates new law & order problems. I would rather have all drugs sold in the open market with very clear health warnings. If there are some who would want to ignore those warnings, it’s their business.
So yes, in an unlikely event of me becoming the prime minister with comfortable majority, I would not tell people what’s right and what’s wrong. I will get the government out of the people’s private lives and let them get on with it.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
This is where I’m saying that we can’t just follow principles because we reach absurd conclusions. For example, according to the blind interpretation that the govt. must not interfere with people’s private lives, we must:
1. Legalize race and gender discrimination and untouchability. After all, as a private citizen if I want to hate someone or not touch someone based on their caste, why should the government get involved? It’s my job to give and my money to pay and I will employ whatever standard I want! Who is the govt. to tell me I should like lower caste people?
2. Legalize Sati. After all, as a private individual if it’s my own free will to burn myself on my husband’s pyre, why should the govt. get involved? My life!
What do you think?
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Yeah, I see what you’re getting at here, and you’re correct. With liberalism, generally we want individual liberty, just as long as those liberties don’t interfere or harm others.
With legalizing race and gender discrimination that is harmful. But it’s not just harmful to the individual it’s harm to “society” as a whole. When you discriminate based on those qualities, you’re denying people opportunities for growth. I think Japanese society is good example of this, for example they’re dealing with a labor shortage, the problem is they’re reluctant to hire women in many areas. If companies there would tap into that resource they probably wouldn’t be having that problem.
But also Ashish I wanted to point out, most of the time it’s the people who force the government to intervene in order to change these laws. :P
1. If I am a private enterprise, I should have the ultimate right to decide who to recruit and who not to recruit. Also, in my personal life, I should have the complete authority to decide who I should like and who I should not.
Is government’s interference in one’s life going to make one like lower caste people, if one has set her mind against them? Isn’t untouchability rampant in India today? Isn’t discrimination rampant in India today?
2. I am completely in favour of euthanasia. If I am happy to end my life, I should have the freedom to do so. But that must be my own decision, taken by my own free will. I like your extreme example of Sati because that would help me make my point very clear. If there’s any coercion or even coaxing involved in making a woman immolate herself on her husband’s pyre, then that’s not free will.
I think the problems you mention in both the points are social problems and the government machinery can’t solve them. They will have to be solved through social education. Ask how many widows would happily kill themselves today and you would get the answer. :)
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Govt. intervention can indeed change society. In the US, it wasn’t until the historic case of 1965 that the black civil rights really took off. Similarly, when the Delhi HC legalized gay sex, it is the first step towards removing discrimination.
Often people look to the law to determine what is right or wrong. Of course, people can still be bigots even when the law says that people are equal. That’s a given. But when the law explicitly says bigotry is OK, then you can be 100% sure that there will be more bigots.
Let me understand what you’re saying. If you go to a restaurant and the manager says “Sorry -you’re an Indian and I don’t like Indians eating my food” – you’re ok with that? You may not like it, but will you say “Oh well…it’s his restaurant?”
You’re ok with the famous “Dogs and Indians not allowed” signs for example?
That’s a good question Bhagwad and the answer is straightforward – YES, I hold that the owner should have the decision to allow or not allow me to eat in his restaurant.
And not that it doesn’t happen today. There are adult night clubs that only allow people over 30/40 years, there are schools that only prefer children of certain religions etc.
Now it hasn’t happened to me yet but if in an unlikely event I am declined entry from a restaurant/club/shop etc. on the basis of my race or skin colour, clearly that shop won’t enjoy my custom and with the communication channels we have today, won’t survive the bad press.
In fact, this goes on to prove my point that the governments can’t do what social freedom can. The “dogs and Indians not allowed” came from the authorities, Gandhi was thrown off the train by government employees. How often have you come across a private enterprise discriminating against their individual stakeholders?
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
Until the US supreme court ruled that such discrimination was illegal, private race discrimination against paying customers was rampant. In fact, in 1883 the US courts said precisely what you’re saying now and held that such discrimination was legal – a ruling that was overturned later on.
It’s a mistake to think that such things are self correcting. Without the intervention of the govt., blacks would still have separate dressing rooms in clothes stores for example – and social attitudes propagate themselves with frightening ease. Note, that blacks were not discriminated in public institutions, but only private ones. In private housing, private restaurants…everywhere in fact.
Only when the courts intervened did attitudes start to change. The law led, and society followed.
I realize where you’re coming from. If anything, I’m very much a liberal. But I don’t like to label myself since I don’t believe any set of principles can cover all life situations. History has shown that govt. and court intervention does indeed change attitudes.
In fact, if the Indian govt. hadn’t done this stupid reservation thing and just outlawed untouchability and discrimination I feel things would have been far better. A great deal of what is “progressive” these days has come about due to govt. intervention thereby preventing the unnecessary suffering and discrimination against millions of people.
In reply to bhagwad
Sorry just noticed the reply button on the top :)
Yeah I think we disagree on the government intervention part. Sure some interventions have proven to be beneficial but many others have not.
Most of the social change in India started with individual efforts and then caught government attention. Be it the practice of Sati or women’s education or untouchability.
I am of the opinion that laws don’t in themselves change people’s attitudes and behaviours; they only suppress them. Social change comes from social education, which is essentially a private enterprise.
I hold that we need more Jyotiba Phules and Raja Rammohan Roys and less of laws.
In reply to Ashish Deodhar
For me I think it comes down to one thing: Stupid people vastly outnumber smart ones. For this reason, “society” isn’t self correcting. Even if a few people are smart enough to realize that race discrimination is unfair, they don’t possess the muscle needed to propagate their ideas so that they take hold.
Civil society works it’s magic only when the forces are nearly equal. But when an overwhelming majority of people think/feel a certain way (like untouchability) then that society will never “correct” without an external imposition that at least lays down concrete rules for what is good/bad. People who are then “on the fence” will unconsciously look to the law for guidance for deciding the right thing to do.
In that case, it becomes critical to have “good” prescriptive laws.
In reply to bhagwad
I think the flaw in the ‘stupid people outnumber smart ones’ is that it assumes that those in the government are smart ones and their subjects are stupid. Besides, in a democracy, if the majority thinks untouchability is good, the government won’t be able to implement its law in a meaningful way.
I believe that most people are sensible and those few who aren’t are put under an extreme social pressure to be sensible. Leave the people alone and they will do just fine.
But anyway, let’s agree to disagree on this one too. This is a classic debate and we will not reach a resolution anytime soon. :)
It is a dilemma. While I’m liberal..I am along the lines that I respect everyone’s right to choose how they live, especially in regards to sexuality. If you’re into threesomes…sure have fun with that. BDSM…why not? But then, how would you really define public? :P Like having sex in ones car is quite common. ;P
On the issue of drugs, I don’t know if legalizing dangerous will really solve anything. Yes it’s true that alcohol is legalized and regulated, but there’s still problems associated with alcohol. That’s why I’m still unsure about my thoughts on the legalization of prostitution, because I don’t if it would actually curb things like human trafficking.
In reply to RenKiss
What’s your feedback on the above comments on the freedom to racially discriminate against people?
Like you I believe people have the right to choose for themselves EXCEPT for in matters that will harm others…
In recent years, an increasingly large number of people are choosing not to get their children vaccinated…It’s fine if they don’t mind their children contracting polio or meningitis or whatever BUT it is not fine for them to put other kids in danger…Governments should make vaccinations compulsory…In the US, 48 states allow exemptions based on religion and personal philosophies…
In reply to Sraboney
People’s kids arent their property. I think their *own* kids have the rights to be inoculated / vaccinated. It is a valid state function IMO to protect the rights of those who are unable to assert them, like the kids in this case.
thanks,
Jai
The assumption is the problem. The basic assumption when we say that ‘I hold the right to harm myself’ is that everyone has access and understanding of all information related to the issue. In reality, they don’t. The same reason that the market needs regulation – it has the same assumption on information.
Even information that is publicized is not understood the same way by me, an educated person and another like my maid, who is not educated. She regularly comes to me to ask about the ramifications of some acts/context of some issues. The other assumption is that everyone is of sound mind. When a person is under the influence of drugs, they are not able to make sense of what they are up against (like illicit liquor brewed). Regulation has to happen when things are unequal and people can be exploited if some authority does not step in.
Some issues also need regulation because there is a strong side for and an equally strong one against. Some call has to be taken then and that I believe is regulation. As for public sex, that day is coming soon, I am sure of it!
In reply to Sangitha
This is a tough one. I think you’re right when you say that a person under the influence of drugs isn’t mentally sound. After all, we have medical proof of it.
But in cases like your maid for example, the fact that she comes to you for advice means that she knows she doesn’t understand. She can take your advice or leave it. Ultimately it’s still her choice and not yours even though you perhaps have a far better understanding of the situation than she does.
So I believe we must have facilities to help people if they want help, but not force that help down their throats. After all, every person is responsible for their own actions and if they’re hell bent on doing something so long as it harms no one but themselves, they should be allowed to…