| I am not a lawyer. I am from a legal family (three generations) and I understand jurisprudence > you instead leave ambiguity that harms the well meaning and benefits the malicious. Two points 1. Law advantages those with access, and often benefits the malicious and harms the good. Case in point: Drug law. Another is IP law 2. Law is not objective. The words that form it are in black and white, but there are courts and judges because the application of the law is subjective. The boundary cases are numerous and important More generally.... > If something is bad enough that it should be banned by an unwritten rule, it's bad enough to be banned by a written rule. Sotp, just stop! This is the idea that we must punish and scantion people into being good. I think of things that are good (like treating drug addicts as ill, not criminal or imoral). I think not of "bans". They accomplish little. Permissible, impermissible, these are blunt concepts that are not very useful. We can be, and should be, aspirational and collegial not judgemental and competitive |
You're not understanding what this conversation is about. Taboos punish and sanction people into being good. We are in full agreement that this is undesirable. There are some things that should be banned, and if they should be banned, they should be banned explicitly. There are many other things that should not be banned, and if it should not be banned it should not be a taboo, which is a form of ban.
You give a perfect example for my argument - treating drug addiction as an illness that should be treated instead of a moral failure to be punished. Where drug use is a taboo, you can't treat it; eliminating the taboo and accepting that these are people in need of help is, in my and many other people's opinion, the correct course of action. Most would agree that making drug use legal but ostracizing drug users would be an absurd strategy.
Taboos are fundamentally about what is permissible and impermissible, there is no other framework in which to talk about them.