> > b. Gross immorality should be illegal
>
> No. Because then you get into the debate about who decides what is immoral, and I won't live under any sort of theocracy.

But this is already the way it is Dave. I don't know why you mention theocracy, as the morality or immmorality of some action may be totally unconnected to God or the gods, the Tao, or what have you. In my country, we already have somewhat of a theocracy; but the priests who claim to speak for God are called Supreme Court Justices, and they are appointed by our Prime Minister, the holy canadian emperor.
>
> My thoughts about it are basically this: Things are illegal when they infringe upon the basic rights of others. Killing is illegal because it infringes upon a person's right to live. Stealing is illegal because it infringes upon a person's right to own property.

But that first sentence is not exactly what you mean, I think. You can correct me if I am wrong. You must not mean "things are illegal when they infringe upon the basic rights of others"; you must mean "things should be illegal when they infringe upon the basic rights of others". I am not merely being picky or pedantic here. You can have this point, but then one must ask why infringements upon basic human rights should be illegal. Isn't any answer to this question going to be a moral answer? Talk about rights, freedoms, and infringement is inherently moral talk. Because such things have been enshrined in legal systems for all of ... well, at least all of my life, it is easy to forget that they all find their basis in moral precepts. Rights must be recognized as moral rights before they become legal rights. We legalize the right to property because one has a moral right to own property and not have it stolen from him or her. We criminalize murder because we believe in the moral right of a person to live. So, your distinction, and your desire to avoid "any kind of theocracy" is a false one; the debates about who should say what is immoral and what is moral will and must continue, because they will directly influence the law.

I hope that I mentioned that I agree it is primarily the lack of consent that makes the production of child pornography wrong. I agree with you there.
> With child pornography, it's harder to define exactly what rights are being infringed, but it mostly has to do with the idea of consent. Adult pornography is legal because in theory an adult has the ability and the right to consent to be the subject of sexually explicit material. It's illegal to force someone to perform sexual acts in front of a camera. It's also illegal to tape someone having consensual sex without their knowledge and consent.
>
It's disgusting and repulsive, but no real person is being hurt or having their rights infringed by it, so I can't think of a good reason to make it illegal. There's unfortunately a whole lot of things I think are disgusting and repugnant that are legal, so to me this would just be one more thing to add to the list. The fact that it apparently *is* illegal is a little baffling to me. I'd guess it's one of those places where people *are* trying to legislate morality, despite the inherent wrongness of that.

But all of things you think should be illegal infringe on people's rights, or at least the right to freedom from harm. That's fine if that is as far as you want to go; I pass no judgement on the precept you use, as I think it is a good starting point. But it is clear that, while this is a case where "people are trying to legislate morality" it is not inherently wrong to do so. You do the same thing, and you must, just as everyone else; you simply disagree with some others about which principles should be used.

Frum