Mandatory is not the opposite of Forbidden

[essentialsaltes]

Something has been rankling. Allow me to express my rankle.

There seems to be a misunderstanding that the opposite of forbidden is mandatory.
In some parts of the world, it is mandatory for women to wear funny clothes. This is bad. So to counteract that, other countries are moving toward making it forbidden for women to wear funny clothes. This is almost certainly bad as well, but more importantly it's wrong-headed. Forbidden is not the opposite of mandatory. After all, forbidding alcohol is the same as mandating temperance.

Another example of this rankle showed up in the great Draw Muhammad kerfuffle. Some people have the silly idea that it is forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad. Other people who do not hold this silly idea had their own silly idea: "the opposite of being forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad is to draw pictures of Muhammad." In fact, the opposite of being forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad is not being forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad. Fortunately for me, I'm not forbidden to draw pictures of Muhammad, so I've won my victory against a silly idea without even doing anything.

More recently, PZ Myers got on my last nerve in a post about Paul Kurtz, whom PZ takes to task for being 'soft' on blasphemy. Quoth PZ, "You have not protected the right to blaspheme if you also gag yourself and say you won't." So apparently the way to combat the idea that blasphemy is forbidden is to make blasphemy mandatory. On this point I took him to task by noting that his position would make it impossible to protect the right to have hot gay sex without having hot gay sex. If mandatory were the opposite of forbidden, I would have no choice but to have hot gay sex.

There is a word that embodies an important liberal (and American) ideal; that word is 'allowed'. The opposite of mandatory/forbidden is allowed.
I am allowed to wear funny clothes.
I am allowed to have the idea that I must wear funny clothes.
I am allowed to have the idea that I don't have to wear funny clothes.
I am allowed to draw a picture of Muhammad.
I am allowed to not draw a picture of Muhammad.
I am allowed to blaspheme.
I am allowed to have hot gay sex (if Dr. Pookie agrees)

There are good reasons that laws mandate or forbid certain things, but there is plenty of room for allowance.

ETA: Donovan reminded me that, despite my near-total ignorance of political philosphy, I wanted to end this screed by quoting a political philosopher who wrestled with these very issues and came to a similar conclusion:

Kang: Abortions for all.
crowd boos
Very well, no abortions for anyone.
crowd boos
Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.
crowd cheers

Comments

[alex-victory.livejournal.com]

I used to have a bumper sticker from the Schwa Corporation, it was big white letters on black background:

EVERYTHING NOT STRICTLY
FORBIDDEN IS NOW MANDATORY

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

In The Once and Future King, when Arthur has his adventure among the ants, their slogan is EVERYTHING NOT FORBIDDEN IS COMPULSORY.

[marlo.livejournal.com]

Very well said!

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with you on all but two niggling points. First, you state that making it mandatory for women to wear funny clothes is bad. You're probably right, but why? We enlightened Westerners readily jump to this conclusion but what evidence do we have to support it?

Second, you state that the word "allowed" is an important "liberal (and American) ideal". Why would you categorize it as an exclusively "liberal" ideal? That is, unless you're using the word "liberal" in a traditional rather than modern sense.

Donovan

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

what evidence do we have to support it?

Evidence that something is 'bad'? Morality is not an empirical science. I can't do that. Though Sam Harris may disagree.

In the end, my judgment is based on my moral intuitions and assumptions. If you like, it stems from my respect for liberal ideals, which takes us to question two.

When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less. I suppose I mean it in the traditional or even etymological sense, where it is attached to liberty/freedom, as opposed to forces of authoritarian social control. Maybe I meant individualism. Heck if I know, my knowledge of political science is abysmal.

[(Anonymous)]

Perhaps "evidence" wasn't the right word. Nevertheless, I was wondering if making women wear "funny clothes" harms them in some way. While I'm certain that other things (like beatings and ritual mutilation) oppress them, I'm not sure about the clothing. Many come to the U.S. and continue to wear such clothing voluntarily. In short, when I hear someone say, "This is bad" (your original statement), my immediate response is, "Why?"

As for the word "liberal", it has multiple (and strangely incompatible) meanings, which is why I was asking. The question is, Humpty Dumpty, whether you can make words mean so many different things -- and, obviously, you can.

Donovan

[essentialsaltes.livejournal.com]

Certainly wearing funny clothes is not inherently harmful or bad.

Many come to the U.S. and continue to wear such clothing voluntarily.

And so they should. I'm only objecting to mandating the wearing of funny clothes (and forbidding the wearing of funny clothes).

[gotham-bound.livejournal.com]

And so the terrorists won...

[dogofthefuture.livejournal.com]

This is why Proposition 8 was so important: If gay marriage isn't forbidden, it's mandatory.

[ladyeuthanasia.livejournal.com]

Very sensible on many counts.

I should point out that the reason -- as wrong-headed as it is -- that France has forbidden certain funny clothes stems back to their definition of égalité. It might seem weird to us (and I think it is) but conformity is integral to their definition of equality. Religion is supposed to be a very private thing, not worn on one's sleeve (so to speak).

To our American senses, it's ridiculous that they outlawed it. But to them it's essential.

[neverjaunty.livejournal.com]

I'm not actually seeing the problem with mandatory hot gay sex.