What do we do about this diversified society that have as many mores as law on the books? Any society which presupposes that mores are necessary to promote the health and stability of a nation is back to the 17th Century bending to the will of the Puritans. Mores and cultural sects have no place in the philosophy of law and morality. As abrasive as it may be to public opinion, respecting the cultural relativity within each society must endure just as parents must grimace over the latest fad of their children. Though all of us to a degree wish not to be at odds with the world, we do not reside in a perfect world and some acts that deviate from the mores are not morally right or wrong necessarily. Twenty years ago if I chose not to wear a tie I would have been seriously reprimanded, though I
would have been wrong in the context of the white-collar world, the act in itself cannot be taken seriously nor morally, however rightly construed as an act of mild rebellion against the facade of peculiar mores. A beautiful girl in a sorority of ugly ducklings is certainly upsetting to the stability of that institution but her wilful act of applying for acceptance cannot be considered wrong. The practice of killing the agéd in an Eskimo village is to promote the health and stability of its tribe, but to accept the continuance of this practice in light of another alternative offered by the influx of affluence, say, by the discovery of oil, would — though consistent with the practice whose original motive tends to be forgotten — would unquestionably have to yield to the higher principle of life, relegating the ancient practice to immorality. 

Still the practice of borrowing diverse culture from one another seems to have a utilitarian value, even if non-essential, in developing a "better" world. Surely, the United States owes a great deal to Britain’s sense of justice and its philosophy — I suspect, it is not fashionable to admit to the latter. If neither case, one cannot deny the value--plus or minus--of the Beatles to America's institution of modern music, and what would Tom Jones be without the Afro-American “soul?” At the same time, diversity for its own sake can be injurious-- just what does gauche Rap or acid Rock have to do with the value of diversity beyond the nonsensical institution of anything goes? More seriously, Islam's treatment of women deserves no applause and the utility of tapping human resources for an improved world is cut in half. In one light religion universally relegates women simply as tolerated, but in fairness, religion cannot override the morality of a nation that sees women as equal.

And though it is true that human survival dictates that one must eat, the Italians--let alone Hebrews-- dictate by enculturation what and how one must eat, one whose relative culture dictates that spiced spaghetti sauce alarms the stability of one’s functions, might discover that his health and well-being surpass the well-being and stability of his hostess. Therefore one’s ethnic tastes will determine the significance one will attach to cultural relativity and saving him from the judgmental label.

As a matter of fact, it is difficult to differentiate taste in other matters from prejudice. Those who prefer blondes are not really reducing brunettes to second class womanhood, but at the same time the brunette rightly takes offense with the perception of less value in spite of being aware of Shallow Hals. Still, this can hardly be equated with Hitler's Super Race.

Legal morality or moral legality setting up law — as indeed is the case in institutional and national history — as a function to perpetrate and perpetuate racism, political and religious persecution, holier-than-thou, fundamentalism and whatever rooted whim brings forth is, of course, bogus. The rule of justification for legal enforcement of morality is prima facie in face of the perversions in society posing a threat to the general welfare. However, with justification springs qualification. Repulsive as Rap and Rock cacophonies might be, by right of freedom of expression it is tolerated and apparently accepted by millions in these subcultures protected by the individual right to choose. An intolerant fundamentalist has the right to be as he is, provided his zone of influence is confined to a sect that does not impede or coerce the rights of others.

How can legal enforcement , which has two aspects bearing on punishment deprive a homosexual of life and liberty and still be justified? — inasmuch as punishment would not be commensurate with the private act of fornication or whatever else it is they do in private, particularly in light of homosexuality running rampant in our prisons. Surely, no reasonable person would advocate castration, besides which the attitudinal posture of the homosexual, I suspect, would remain unchanged. The other aspect, and by far the most lethal consequence is the fear hovering in virtue of this deterrent forcing the weaker into obedience, submission and by exposing them to totalitarianism in all endeavors. For, however repugnant homosexuality may be to general rationale today, tomorrow the rationale may find pre-marital sex, marriage for aging widows, masturbation, academic freedom cause for legal oppression.

Unquestionably and perhaps unfortunately law must sit in judgment but the trick is not to be judgmental.