By: Steven (Tzvi) Werblowsky
The message is: Last class when, we were talking about laws to protect children against pedophiles, someone mentioned how we shouldn’t have strict, maybe unconstitutional, laws against certain crimes we think are immoral because it will be a slippery slope, where do we stop? I think that this is a faulty answer. The first day of class the question was asked “who decides what is moral?” The Prof. answered that he was only talking about those things that we ALL hold to be moral (i.e. telling the truth, treating people with respect, not raping or stealing etc…) so there is NO danger of a slippery slope, because once we enter into a gray area, where people argue over whether something is immoral, and should have a law against it, or not then we automatically would not make a law for it. We are only suggesting making strict laws to protect those things that we all hold are moral. And this way we base the legal system on what we all believe to be moral as opposed to compromising our morals for what the law is.
