[REBORN FROM THE ASHES][comment][02.02]

prettywraithUID: 197049

题材：法律与道德；适合题目：17，174，178，180，169
Law vs. Moralityby Tibor Machan
Tibor Machan is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on March 21, 2002
This article appeared on cato.org on March 21, 2002.
When the Enron case broke, many business bashers jumped at the chance to blame deregulation for the mess. The same had occurred when California started to experience blackouts and hikes in energy costs last year.
Indeed, following some mild moves in the direction of a genuine free market in many parts of the globe and even here in the USA, a lot of well- positioned commentators with clearly statist sentiments experienced near-panic. Indeed, there might be, after decades and decades of sliding toward broader and broader scope for government authority in our lives, some retreat of state power in the offing. This, obviously, couldn't be allowed.
So, one way to attempt a reversal of the rather mild trend toward privatization and deregulation is to begin to blame everything on freedom. And one plausible spin would be to declare that corporations are no different from rouge states, in need, therefore, of the heavy hand of benign government regulators.
In the back of some of these desperate efforts -- to stem any advance toward greater individual liberty in human community life -- is a lesson that might otherwise be missed. It is that when the state does gain widespread intrusive legal authority in the lives of the citizenry, the citizenry will begin to be guided not by its moral conscience and common sense but by the sole consideration of whether what people are doing is OK with the law-makers. Some corporations, for example, declare up front that they are not interested in business ethics -- which they take to vary from culture to culture -- but only in the law. (Which probably is what accounts for the prominence of legal departments at most corporate headquarters.)
But the problem extends farther than business. Recently in Orange County, California, the American Red Cross sponsored an event at a privately owned hotel to which a group of high school students had been invited to sing. Having learned that the singers would belt out some songs that had religious content, the Red Cross folks decided to demand that these be removed from the program, probably figuring that such would be the PC and legally harmless thing to do these days. And as much as this outraged a great many people in the community and ultimately led the Red Cross to issue an apology, what transpired made some kind of perverse sense.
When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.
The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.
But there is a conflict between this unexceptional idea and the widening of the scope of government power. When we get away from the simple negative principles of a just human community -- don't kill, don't assault, don't rob, don't rape and such, meaning, basically, that we should all live together peacefully -- and start regimenting the details of human life, people are no longer similar at all, quite the contrary. Maybe some should and some should not smoke. Maybe some should and some should not go to church. Maybe some should and others should not paint certain kinds of pictures or play certain sports or purchase SUVs or talk with the animals. Only at some very basic level are we all -- or virtually all of us -- alike. We become differentiated rather quickly as it concerns the details of our lives -- some are parents, some teachers, some tall, some women, some young, some athletes, some Roman Catholics, some Jews, some Moonies and some even agnostics or atheists.
Well, in a community that respects -- and has made provisions for the protection of individual rights -- the diversity of human life has nearly free reign. Just look around America and this becomes evident! If now government tries to apply its principles of equal protection under the law to all the different areas of human activity that can arise in a highly diverse society, the task will be impossible and nearly totalitarian. If the American Red Cross acts, then, like a quasi-government, making its program suited to everyone equally, it will find itself unable to do anything even mildly special, let alone controversial. But if its programs are carried out for the general public, it could become concerned about whether to conform to the spirit if not the letter of the law. It may not have to but it may still consider it politically prudent to do this.
This is how we begin to leave our common sense and try to make practices adjust to some artificial one-size-fits-all vision of community life that, in fact, fits no one at all. But once education, recreation and athletics -- to list but a few things people do in life -- become quasi-government affairs, they cannot be differentiated based on different needs of different segments and members of communities. They gradually become the same, or at least pretend to be such, so as to accommodate the now impossible ideal of the now highly intrusive rule of law.
Not only will this generate completely artificial practices and bans but it will also take our minds off what is really important, namely, figuring out on our own how we should conduct ourselves in our lives. We now will be inclined to focus not on morality or ethics but on public policy and law. That is quite understandable, since when law and public policy are not heeded, severe consequences can ensue. We can be found to be law-breakers, which brings about costly sanctions. You smoke in a pub now and this means going to court, paying fines, putting your life on hold. You offend some group and spend years in court!
The American Red Cross officials may perhaps not be fully forgiven for losing their common sense but it is at least understandable why they worried so much about being politically correct. With religious songs at an event open to the public, they would risk bringing down upon them the wrath of the American Civil Liberties Union if not immediately the local police.
A society where laws have become the answer to all human problems, laws get completely confusing and many people begin to be concerned with nothing other than avoiding violating the law. Such a society is very likely to see ethics and morality slowly but surely recede from its midst.

链接：http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3424

AdelineShenUID: 2630498

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... ;extra=&page=12

My comment is here~

dingyi0311UID: 2627919

My comment
This article reveals the author’s worries that the law have become broader and broader and intrude our lives. The concern was raised mostly because the lately event that the Red Cross have sponsored a show in the hotel where a group of singers will belt out religious songs. This religious songs offend the local residents there. The author thought that what is wrong is not the Red Cross, but the two much broad laws. Laws should only concern the deed about our humanity rather than the very detail of our behavior. It should penalty the person who assailt, rape, rober, and kill, but it should not regulate behaviors like smoking, eating, and our living style. As to me, I can not agree the author any more.

tequilawineUID: 2702008

blackout  

n.
灯火管制, 灯火熄灭, 暂时的意识丧失

commentator  

n.
时事评论者; 注释者, 评注者; 实况播音员'com·men·ta·tor || 'kɑmənteɪtər /'kɒmənteɪtə

in the offing [简明英汉词典]
在海面
在附近
即将发生的

benign
[be·nign || bɪ'naɪn]

adj.
仁慈的; 良性的; 亲切的; 有利的

in need [简明英汉词典]
在危难中, 在危急中
in the back of [简明英汉词典]
[美口] 在...背后
支持, 主使

transpire
[tran·spire || træn'spaɪə(r)]

v.
使蒸发, 使排出; 蒸发, 泄露, 发散

perverse
[per·verse || pər'vɜrs /pə'vɜːs]

adj.
乖张的, 错误的, 倔强的

hail from [简明英汉词典]
v.来自

segregation
[seg·re·ga·tion || ‚segrɪ'geɪʃn]

n.
隔离; 分离; 分开; 种族隔离

regiment
[reg·i·ment || 'redʒɪmənt]

n.
团; 大量; 大群

v.
把...编成团; 严密管制, 严格控制

totalitarian
[to·tal·i·tar·i·an || ‚təʊtælɪ'terɪən /-'teər-]

n.
极权主义者

adj.
极权主义的

one-size-fits-all 一刀切

heed
[hɪːd]

n.
注意, 留心

v.
留心, 注意

1 Indeed, there might be, after decades and decades of sliding toward broader and broader scope for government authority in our lives, some retreat of state power in the offing.
2 And one plausible spin would be to declare that corporations are no different from rouge states, in need, therefore, of the heavy hand of benign government regulators.谁会翻译呀？
3 It is that when the state does gain widespread intrusive legal authority in the lives of the citizenry, the citizenry will begin to be guided not by its moral conscience and common sense but by the sole consideration of whether what people are doing is OK with the law-makers.什么局势
4 But the problem extends farther than business.
5 Some corporations, for example, declare up front that they are not interested in business ethics -- which they take to vary from culture to culture -- but only in the law.
6 When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to不考虑 religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.
The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us. If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust.
7 If now government tries to apply its principles of equal protection under the law to all the different areas of human activity that can arise in a highly diverse society, the task will be impossible and nearly totalitarian.
8 But if its programs are carried out for the general public, it could become concerned about whether to conform to the spirit if not the letter of the law. It may not have to but it may still consider it politically prudent to do this.怎么翻译？
9 But there is a conflict between this unexceptional idea and the widening of the scope of government power. When we get away from the simple negative principles of a just human community -- don't kill, don't assault, don't rob, don't rape and such, meaning, basically, that we should all live together peacefully -- and start regimenting the details of human life, people are no longer similar at all, quite the contrary. Maybe some should and some should not smoke. Maybe some should and some should not go to church. Maybe some should and others should not paint certain kinds of pictures or play certain sports or purchase SUVs or talk with the animals.
Only at some very basic level are we all -- or virtually all of us -- alike. We become differentiated rather quickly as it concerns the details of our lives -- some are parents, some teachers, some tall, some women, some young, some athletes, some Roman Catholics, some Jews, some Moonies and some even agnostics or atheists.
10 A society where laws have become the answer to all human problems, laws get completely confusing and many people begin to be concerned with nothing other than avoiding violating the law. Such a society is very likely to see ethics and morality slowly but surely recede from its midst.
Comment
Pretty good is it, right? Obviously it showed us profoundly how severe it will be if we still let governmental rights go unchecked.
As the author concerned, we acquaint, on the basis of these stances, growing of widespread governmental intrusive legal authority in the lives of citizenry, the citizenry will begin to be guided not by its moral conscience and common sense but by the sole consideration of whether what people are doing is OK with the law-makers.
It’s ridiculous, but indeed, it is true and unforgivable. Under the law, we can fulfill our basic human morality without considering the specific individuals, which also is the foundation of the law—equal to everyone without extend favors. Then confliction resides in between this unexceptional idea and the widening of the scope of the government power.

qisaimanUID: 2703629

the author asserts that the root of corporation being immoral in business stems from the widespread intrusive legal authority into the citizenry by the state, which leads to the consequence that people consider what is legal instead of what is moral.
but is the red cross's being politically correctness associated with the theme here ? I do not figure it out.
the article has argued that although some basic human rights should be protected by the law, other daily behavior on habits and religion should not be regulated by one-size-fits-all provision.

prettywraithUID: 197049

我的comment的链接
https://bbs.gter.net/thread-1038757-1-1.html

豆腐店的86UID: 2512956

Again, here comes another topic that I am not quite familiar with. Unlike art and literature which mainly focus on peoples’ feeling and reacts, law’s principle issue is its mechanism of ruling the society. This article discussed the corruption among business and how does it effect. While lacking the knowledge of western corporation running system, I find the article is somewhat ambiguous, since its evidence is not convincing and concrete enough. Contrarily, corruption in Chinese government is not a brand new topic for me. Differs from western country, Chinese people work out problems with the help of inner governors more often. It is a cultural trend which will definitely lead to corruption. Once the party and the government has less power which means they authorized other organization to deal with issues in various fields, corruption may be reduced.

plukaUID: 2721764

Law vs. Morality by Tibor Machan 
Tibor Machan is an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute.
Added to cato.org on March 21, 2002

When the Enron case broke, many business bashers jumped at the chance to blame deregulation（违反规定，反常） for the mess. The same had occurred when California started to experience blackouts（灯火管制） and hikes（突然急剧的上涨） in energy costs last year. 
Indeed, following some mild moves in the direction of a genuine free market in many parts of the globe and even here in the USA, a lot of well- positioned commentators with clearly statist sentiments experienced near-panic. Indeed, there might be, after decades and decades of sliding toward broader and broader scope for government authority in our lives, some retreat of state power in the offing（近海，视野范围内的海面）. This, obviously, couldn't be allowed. 
So, one way to attempt a reversal of the rather mild trend toward privatization and deregulation is to begin to blame everything on freedom. 【And one plausible spin would be to declare that corporations are no different from rouge states, in need, therefore, of the heavy hand of benign government regulators. 】（经济需要政府干预）
In the back of some of these desperate efforts -- to stem（阻止） any advance toward greater individual liberty in human community life -- is a lesson that might otherwise be missed. 【It is that when the state does gain widespread intrusive（打扰的插入的） legal authority in the lives of the citizenry, the citizenry will begin to be guided not by its moral conscience and common sense but by the sole consideration of whether what people are doing is OK with the law-makers】. （当法律干预生活，人们就不再按道德和常识行事，而是去迎合法律）Some corporations, for example, declare up front that they are not interested in business ethics -- which they take to vary from culture to culture -- but only in the law. (Which probably is what accounts for the prominence of legal departments at most corporate headquarters.)
But the problem extends farther than business. Recently in Orange County, California, the American Red Cross sponsored an event at a privately owned hotel to which a group of high school students had been invited to sing. Having learned that the singers would belt out some songs that had religious content, the Red Cross folks decided to demand that these be removed from the program, probably figuring that such would be the PC and legally harmless thing to do these days. And as much as this outraged（引起义愤） a great many people in the community and ultimately led the Red Cross to issue an apology, what transpired（蒸发发生得知） made some kind of perverse（不正当的） sense.
When activities are carried out or supervised by the legal authorities, the principle that no special favors must be extended is the rule. Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes（特征品质）.（法律面前人人平等） It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself. 
【The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward. The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us.（法律的普遍性源于人性的共同点） If one must not kill, assault, kidnap or rob others, that applies simply by virtue of being human not because one hails from Japan or has dark skin pigmentation. That is one reason why segregation, dictated by the laws of various Southern states, was so clearly unjust. That is why even when it would appear to make some sense, racial profiling is a very dubious police practice. That is why sexual or ethnic discrimination by governments is to be forbidden.】
But there is a conflict between this unexceptional idea and the widening of the scope of government power. When we get away from the simple negative principles of a just human community -- don't kill, don't assault, don't rob, don't rape and such, meaning, basically, that we should all live together peacefully -- and start regimenting the details of human life, people are no longer similar at all, quite the contrary. Maybe some should and some should not smoke. Maybe some should and some should not go to church. Maybe some should and others should not paint certain kinds of pictures or play certain sports or purchase SUVs or talk with the animals. Only at some very basic level are we all -- or virtually all of us -- alike. We become differentiated rather quickly as it concerns the details of our lives -- some are parents, some teachers, some tall, some women, some young, some athletes, some Roman Catholics, some Jews, some Moonies and some even agnostics or atheists.
Well, in a community that respects -- and has made provisions for the protection of individual rights -- the diversity of human life has nearly free reign. Just look around America and this becomes evident! If now government tries to apply its principles of equal protection under the law to all the different areas of human activity that can arise in a highly diverse society, the task will be impossible and nearly totalitarian. If the American Red Cross acts, then, like a quasi-government, making its program suited to everyone equally, it will find itself unable to do anything even mildly special, let alone controversial. But if its programs are carried out for the general public, it could become concerned about whether to conform to the spirit if not the letter of the law. It may not have to but it may still consider it politically prudent to do this. 
This is how we begin to leave our common sense and try to make practices adjust to some artificial one-size-fits-all vision of community life that, in fact, fits no one at all. （许多领域原本就难以一致，强求普适规则只会一事无成）But once education, recreation and athletics -- to list but a few things people do in life -- become quasi-government affairs, they cannot be differentiated based on different needs of different segments and members of communities. They gradually become the same, or at least pretend to be such, so as to accommodate the now impossible ideal of the now highly intrusive rule of law.（在法律的强求下，团体不得不装作一致的样子。这样反而阻碍了团体发展更重要的特征，达到目的）。
Not only will this generate completely artificial practices and bans but it will also take our minds off what is really important, namely, figuring out on our own how we should conduct ourselves in our lives. We now will be inclined to focus not on morality or ethics but on public policy and law. That is quite understandable, since when law and public policy are not heeded, severe consequences can ensue. We can be found to be law-breakers, which brings about costly sanctions. You smoke in a pub（酒馆客栈） now and this means going to court, paying fines, putting your life on hold. You offend some group and spend years in court!
The American Red Cross officials may perhaps not be fully forgiven for losing their common sense but it is at least understandable why they worried so much about being politically correct. With religious songs at an event open to the public, they would risk bringing down upon them the wrath（愤怒） of the American Civil Liberties Union if not immediately the local police.
A society where laws have become the answer to all human problems, laws get completely confusing and many people begin to be concerned with nothing other than avoiding violating the law. Such a society is very likely to see ethics and morality slowly but surely recede from its midst.

COMMENT
This essay opened a new window for me to view the relationship between the law and people's life. It is uncommon, yet surely convincing. It pointed out problems ensue from today's law-first era where the control and standards of every act fall almost entirely on the rule of laws, instead of morality and ethics. Without reading it, I in fact haven't thought about the issue that law actually can hamper the realization of moral prowess. The author cited totalitarian society, and yes that's apt example. 

123runfordreamUID: 2697608

When the Enron case broke, many business bashers jumped at
(jump at [jump at sth] phr v to eagerly accept the chance to do something) the chance to blame deregulation for the mess.


In the back of some of these desperate efforts -- to stem any advance toward greater individual liberty in human community life -- is a lesson that might otherwise be missed.




Under the law, everyone must be treated the same, without regard to religion, color, national origin, and other special attributes. It is this idea that animates the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and, indeed, the rule of law itself.


The reasoning behind this is rather straightforward (Proceeding in a straight course; direct.)
The law governs us all as human beings who live in human communities. So, it is only our common humanity that must come into play as far as the law is concerned, nothing special about us.


This is how we begin to leave our common sense and try to make practices adjust to some artificial one-size-fits-all vision of community life that, in fact, fits no one at all. But once education, recreation and athletics -- to list but a few things people do in life -- become quasi-government affairs, they cannot be differentiated based on different needs of different segments and members of communities.



Comment:
I’ve been trying for more then two days to fulfill this comment but failed for I thought this is such a great articled that I don’t think reading such a few times is enough that makes me to understand. Yeah, I can not say I totally get it. I am just so sure this is lot information for me. Discussing about law and the following action for it that enlightens us about dos and don’ts and its connection with our whole society. The aim at which our ancestors making law is for us to follow, and that will create a under control, harmony society. For making us everyone living together safe from daily life, making efforts to make sure our society is moving forwards. But if there is no more crime, how is our society supposed to be? I always have a question about communism. When one day the goal has been achieved, everyone is as rich as others, no motivation exists anymore, how the society is going to be? Well, at some point, I think they are the same.
Simple imagination about those issues I’ve been done. I shall keep reading.

zhengchangdianUID: 2563082

Comment：

I have never read a passage concerned about law and morality of such novelty. To my surprise, the author extends law-makers' standpoint to the dimension of equity and its ensuing consequences. It is said that individual diversity would diminish gradually resulting from the public request for absolute equity and the compelled law-makers, who dominate the detailed rule of law would behalf of their relevant social cast. Therefore, people have to pretend to live under equity and eliminate their specialized characters. In this circumstance, we come across a paradox that the statue is established on the basis of justice, however, absolute equity would destroy the law in return. It is similar to say that the extent of violence plays a key role in the implement of statue.