Two common points crop up in these kinds of discussions:
- what if you're part of a minority the government wants to disappear, like the Uyghur in China? DNA is indicative of many minorities. You don't have to commit a crime.
- you don't have to share your DNA, some distant cousin sharing theirs is enough to implicate you (as in the Golden State Killer's arrest). You cannot control your far-flung relatives. You may not have a choice in this kind of privacy. That's what makes DNA unique in relation to other kinds of private data: your cousin's browsing history does not implicate you, DNA however may.
It's difficult for me to imagine what in your mind would justify extrajudicial disappearances. You don't even account for the immorality of certain laws, you assume that the law _IS_ morality. Quite interesting, indeed.
It is more of the converse in that I see breaking the law as immoral. My position is consistent which is why an extreme example has what people conceive of as an extreme response. I try and avoid letting emotions cloud my judgement in such matters.
>It is more of the converse in that I see breaking the law as immoral
It's the same thing. When you see breaking the law as inherently immoral, you guide your life to exist strictly in-line with the law. In other words, you use the law as a moral guide.
You unequivocally equate law with morality. And you fail to account for immoral laws, as well as illegal enforcement actions. Was having gay sex immoral in the 80s, but suddenly became moral as it was legalized? What about countries where it is illegal? Is having gay sex there immoral? Not exactly a position I'd call consistent, as you put it.
What about simply existing as a Palestinian person? Is being Palestinian immoral? It's certainly bordering on illegal, as extermination efforts continue.
>Was having gay sex immoral in the 80s, but suddenly became moral as it was legalized?
To me it was immoral before and after. Just because one way of something being immoral is it being illegal that doesn't mean there are other things that are legal, but are immoral. One can also hold the view that something should be legalized while it is currently illegal. I do not see morality and legality as being equivalent. Though I will say that they are related as the morals of society influences what is and is not illegal.
>What about simply existing as a Palestinian person?
I do not have enough knowledge of politics in the Middle East to give an intelligent analysis of such a thing. You say simply existing, but from my very shallow knowledge I feel it may not be that simple, so I will hold off from answering. Tangentially, whether it is moral to exist is a deeply philosophical question. There are some groups of people who think it is immoral for humanity to exist due to our impact on the environment for example.
We give up degenerate and harmful "interests" sure (murder, theft etc.) but we certainly don't need to give up any what we believe in just because of some irrational attachment to a certain state.
- what if you're part of a minority the government wants to disappear, like the Uyghur in China? DNA is indicative of many minorities. You don't have to commit a crime.
- you don't have to share your DNA, some distant cousin sharing theirs is enough to implicate you (as in the Golden State Killer's arrest). You cannot control your far-flung relatives. You may not have a choice in this kind of privacy. That's what makes DNA unique in relation to other kinds of private data: your cousin's browsing history does not implicate you, DNA however may.