From: Mike Lorrey (mlorrey@yahoo.com)
Date: Mon Jul 29 2002 - 13:43:20 MDT
--- Damien Broderick
<d.broderick@english.unimelb.edu.au> wrote:
> At 11:52 PM 7/28/02 -0700, Lee wrote:
>
> >Laws should be obeyed, right or wrong.
>
> Really? Even these, were they enacted?
>
> Law 1: Nobody shall be permitted to change his or
> her name, with the
> exception of each married woman who is obliged to
> adopt her husband's surname.
>
> Law 2: All humans named Lee, either surname or given
> name, will be executed
> on sight, but only by legally authorized officers.
>
> Law 3. All males over the age of 15 are legally
> authorized officers for the
> purposes of Law 2.
>
> Laws as strange, gratuitous and hideous as those
> have been part of the
> legal code of your nation, I understand. Ought they
> to have been obeyed, on
> the grounds that disobeying laws for motives of
> morality opens the way to
> terrible consequences and the decay of the social
> fabric?
I've never heard of a death penalty for having a
certain name. I furthermore don't think much of your
other examples as examples to prove your point. In a
society with poor interstate communications and
identity verification services, changing one's name
would primarily serve as a means of avoiding one's
contractual obligations, a significant problem of
morality itself.
Nor have 15 year olds ever been considered legal
adults in the US. Prior to the 1970's, 21 was the age
of majority to be a registered voter (and thereby an
authorized militia member).
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:15:45 MST