Monday, August 10, 2009
Privacy and Natural Law
Being in the first group, we didn’t know what to expect as naturalists (traditional naturalists at that). I believe we gave a vivid explanation of what is natural law, and how we view it in today’s society. I believe the case of Griswold v. Connecticut brought up the most debate. The issue that I took from all the comments was the issue of privacy. The case removed its law from legislation regarding no medical advisements for contraceptives. In the 1960s, it was not really being enforced, but as soon as Griswold opened a clinic, it became a problem. As naturalists, it seems as if we have a problem with public acts that break the law, but as soon as it’s done privately, it’s not really a problem. You can question whether or not that is a problem with Connecticut’s law enforcement because how can you really monitor advice? It is somewhat impossible. I simply have an issue with maintaining both privacy and the legitimacy of the law. If you break the law publicly or within your private home, it is still breaking the law; however, how can you really monitor things certain laws that are done more privately.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I don't think this is an issue that is specific to Natural Law Theory. I think that all different theories of law are affected by this privacy issue. To me it's just something that occurs in law no matter what and there's really no way around it. I mean, we see things like this all the time. Underage drinking for instance. Clearly its illegal, yet most of us still engage in it while in the privacy of our own homes. We're aware that it's illegal, so we also make the choice to not take it into the public realm, we keep the alcohol inside so as to make sure law enforcement isn't going to see it. To me this isn't really tied to natural law, it's just something that's going to occur whether we like it or not. If people thing they can get away with breaking a law in the private realm, it's going to happen.
ReplyDelete