I’ve just uploaded a new working paper…my first working paper actually. I am hoping to improve on it and eventually prepare it for potential publication, so comments are welcome. The title is “Moral Legislation and Democracy: The Devlin-Dworkin-Hart Debate Revisited.” You can view the full pdf version here. As a teaser, here is the opening paragraph:
The issue of moral legislation is a perennial one in modern politics, particularly in the United States. Can we make a distinction between the criminal and the merely immoral? Should there be a realm of private morality that is none of the law’s business, and, if so, how large (or small) should it be and what should it encompass? Those who favor moral legislation, i.e., legislation that criminalizes to varying degrees actions considered by others to be a matter of private morality, fall on both sides of the mainstream political spectrum. Conservatives tend to favor using the state to preserve traditional values by, for example, restriction or prohibition of drug and alcohol use, anti-pornography laws and other crimes of indecency, anti-prostitution laws, anti-sodomy laws, strict criteria for divorce, and laws against same-sex marriage. Indeed, the issue of homosexuality features prominently in the Devlin-Dworkin-Hart debate. On the other side of the spectrum, left-liberals tend to favor using the state to prevent and punish acts of discrimination, hate speech, and insensitivity to certain classes of minorities considered to be official victim groups. I will even submit that left-liberal social welfare policies in general qualify as moral legislation.