Posts
I would like to begin by adding some more thoughts to the post before mine. Jasmine noted that people have a moral right to healthcare, and there are many who do not have access to that service. On page 5, Wellman states that "...introduction of some new legal right as necessary to protect some alleged moral right." When I first read this part, I associated it with what Jasmine is saying, but after looking again, I feel that Wellman is criticizing people for needing a legal action/right to "do the moral act". Why is it that people cannot act morally without the influence of law?
Further, another concept that struck me was the passage on sexual harassment. The following sentance stirred some emotions. "When sexual harassment takes a less serious form, the best solution is personal negotiation...office or the factory." (4). The reason this statement had such a strong impact is the way "smaller" harassment was tossed aside. In a way, it was made less important, and left to the victim to deal with. Small or big, unwanted sexual attention or harassment is still destructive to one's ability to perform well in one's job. It is not only "big" or "serious" harassment that needs legal attention.
My question still remains the same. Why do people need law to keep them in line with morality? Many refer to the golden rule, but few actually adhere to it's practice.
Mental Models of Purpose of College
2 years ago
Ernie, a thought on the harassment section - I agree that it was disconcerting that he mentions this as if "small" acts of sexual harassment have no validity. On the other hand, I can understand that perhaps sexual harassment could arise from misunderstandings - and prosecuting someone for a misunderstanding does seem a bit harsh. As a side note, Wellman seems to think (or at least his writing makes it seem as though he thinks) that only women can be victims and only men can be perpetrators: "Still, conferring a legal right not to be sexually harassed upon a female employee is frequently no solution at all..." (4). Thanks, Wellman.
ReplyDeleteIn regard to your final question, perhaps not all of us do, but those of us who do not probably need protection from those who do need laws to tell them how to behave. This might be too idealistic. Maybe Hobbes was right in his analysis of human nature, but that view is too pessimistic for my taste. I don't think I would want to try out a society without laws, but I also don't think I want to live in a society with too many laws... Essentially my response is, "Huh, good question."
I'm out.