Should we abide by unjust laws?

[Taraz]

One of my old roommates was a pretty hardcore Christian. I had always thought that he didn't drink because he thought drinking was bad. When he turned 21 a few years ago he started drinking all of a sudden and I was real confused. From our conversations it had seemed like he was appalled that everyone was drinking in school and that it was immoral, so I naturally assumed he thought intoxicants were just bad.

Apparently he just thought underage drinking was wrong and that it was terrible to break the law. I had also noticed that he never sped on the freeway, but I just assumed he was a bad driver. I asked him about what he would do in the case that he was forbidden by law to talk to females or something equally ridiculous. I assumed he would see that just because something is made law doesn't mean that it is righteous. To my surprise he said that he would stop talking to girls, but that he would do all he could to change the law by working within our system.

I thought this was absurd, but then he made a semi-compelling point. Who gets to decide what laws are unjust? If someone feels like a law is wrong, should they just have the right to break it? Why is my moral code so superior to our legal system? I didn't really have any good response to that other than I guess I would be willing to take the punishment if I got caught. But that's not entirely true because I would feel jobbed if I actually incurred some kind of penalty for breaking a BS law.

I'm not sure what I'm looking for with this post, but does anyone have any better answer to his questions? I've never really encountered his viewpoint, so I didn't know how to deal with it.

[gull]

Is the justness of the law even relevant to the cost-benefit analysis of breaking it?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Is the justness of the law even relevant to the cost-benefit analysis of breaking it?

[/ QUOTE ]

Only if you don't want to go to hell /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Who gets to decide what laws are unjust? If someone feels like a law is wrong, should they just have the right to break it? Why is my moral code so superior to our legal system?

[/ QUOTE ]
Superiority has little to do with it but I detest the idea of a society where everyone obeyed laws they disagree with and suspect that the only way to have a system with good laws is for people to break bad laws.

chez

[PairTheBoard]

I think there is more than one force at work here. Society generally benefits if there is a healthy respect for the law. I want to enjoy those benefits and my decision is to do my part by exercising a healthy respect for the law myself. This means obeying laws which are personally inconvenient for me. So this is one Force at work.

However, the Law is often too rigid to efficiently accomplish what it intends to. So society can sometimes be improved when its members obey the spirit of the law while adapting it to peculiarities of specific situations. Sometimes society benefits if we fudge on the law. Sometimes rigid adherence to the law is just downright counterproductive. So this is another Force at work.

Then there is the Boston Tea Party kind of situation. We sometimes have to recognize that the authority behind the law is simply corrupt and it is our duty to apply the principle of civil disobedience.

That's how I see it.

PairTheBoard

[Metric]

I don't claim that this is the "right answer" for everyone, but I personally have far more confidence in my own judgement of reasonable behavior than I have in the "rule makers." Most of the time I'm easily within the bounds of law, but when I'm not, my only concern is related to the consequences of being caught.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my moral code so superior to our legal system?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why is a piece of paper with some ink on it superior to a human being?

[JuntMonkey]

"Trial and Death of Socrates" by Plato covers this (Socrates is wrong, but his point was far more legitimate in his time than it is in ours).

Anyway, government itself is unjust so do whatever the [censored] you want, cost-benefit in mind. "The system" is nonsense.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my moral code so superior to our legal system?

[/ QUOTE ]
You can just as well ask yourself why is the legal system superior to your moral code?

In the case of victimless crimes you need to only worry about your own moral code. The legal system hasn't shown me to be a legitimate force in deciding when I can and can't drink alcohol on mine or a consenting person's property, so I see no need to care what it says (except as someone else mentioned, when considering the cost/benefit of breaking the law).

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Society generally benefits if there is a healthy respect for the law.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'd admend your statement to say "society generally benefits from respect for others". Do you think that would be better? I don't think society benefitted from the results of the Dred Scott trial for instance.

[bkholdem]

Your friend is brainwashed. He has been assimilated into the borg of the authoritarian regime.

I don't need a substitute mommy and daddy in washington d.c. making decisions for how I will act and behave. People drawn to government have control issues and unfortunately a fair portion of the populace likes to be controlled. Too many people find it acceptable, or even desirable to have others controlling them, to having others structure their lives and their outlook on the world and what they 'should' and 'should not' do.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Why is my moral code so superior to our legal system? I didn't really have any good response to that

[/ QUOTE ]

Part of the beauty of my moral code is that I do not feel the necessity to justify its legitimacy or superiority to some tool who needs jackasses in washington d.c. to tell him how to live his life, to tell him what right and wrong is.

If some idiot needs or wants others to tell him what is right and what is wrong that is fine with me, but I don't need that.

[BCPVP]

No talking to girls? That's the best doomsday scenario you could come up with for a hardcore Christian? Why not ask him what he'd do if he were required by law to perform an abortion every day? Or to publicly reject God and worship an idol? Or if he had to vote Democrat for the rest of his life? Your hypothetical law just wasn't offensive enough to his own morals. I think most legal positivists like this guy have a point where they wouldn't follow "the Law".

[JuntMonkey]

[ QUOTE ]
Your friend is brainwashed. He has been assimilated into the borg of the authoritarian regime.

I don't need a substitute mommy and daddy in washington d.c. making decisions for how I will act and behave. People drawn to government have control issues and unfortunately a fair portion of the populace likes to be controlled. Too many people find it acceptable, or even desirable to have others controlling them, to having others structure their lives and their outlook on the world and what they 'should' and 'should not' do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the book "Summerhill" changed me into an anarchist for good. It's written by a guy who ran a "free school" where the children can essentially do as they please (without harming others). Lessons are not mandatory, playing all day is fine.

The kids turn out normal and happy. They have supreme and unwavering self-confidence and pwn job interviews because they were never forced to fear authority figures.

A lot of people think that humans inherently need structure, but the only reason many of us "need" it is because we were indoctrinated into a rigid structure at some point between the ages of 3-5 for the next 15 years of our lives (at least). I loved structure and believed completely in the legitimacy and the beauty of the system of the U.S. government until some point in college when I matured and woke the [censored] up.

[Mr. Philosophy]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your friend is brainwashed. He has been assimilated into the borg of the authoritarian regime.

I don't need a substitute mommy and daddy in washington d.c. making decisions for how I will act and behave. People drawn to government have control issues and unfortunately a fair portion of the populace likes to be controlled. Too many people find it acceptable, or even desirable to have others controlling them, to having others structure their lives and their outlook on the world and what they 'should' and 'should not' do.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is why the book "Summerhill" changed me into an anarchist for good. It's written by a guy who ran a "free school" where the children can essentially do as they please (without harming others). Lessons are not mandatory, playing all day is fine.

The kids turn out normal and happy. They have supreme and unwavering self-confidence and pwn job interviews because they were never forced to fear authority figures.

A lot of people think that humans inherently need structure, but the only reason many of us "need" it is because we were indoctrinated into a rigid structure at some point between the ages of 3-5 for the next 15 years of our lives (at least). I loved structure and believed completely in the legitimacy and the beauty of the system of the U.S. government until some point in college when I matured and woke the [censored] up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are there any studies that show these kids turn out fine? And how old are these children when they started going to this school? I can see a 12 year-old possibly succeeding in this environment, but I think a younger child would need some structure.

[PantsOnFire]

[ QUOTE ]
Should we abide by unjust laws?

[/ QUOTE ]
Think about how society would look today if we had all abided by previous unjust laws; let's take some big ones like prohibiition, slavery, women's right to vote, various civil rights, and on and on.

I guess the real question is can you fully abide by all laws yet still have mechanisms to improve or amend them? Is there some method other than civil disobedience that is powerful enough to change law for the better?

[Archon_Wing]

OP,

this is why some laws happen to be more enforced than others. Sometimes you'll just get a stern warning for lesser infractions, but obviously in dangerous cases such as murder the law will always be enforced as much as possible.

One can just look at the case of online poker; indeed they haven't gone to the extent of prosecuting individual users.

Of course, I never believe in following rules just because they are rules, but some are lazy and of course one views things from their own moral beliefs first; that's how we create judgments. Then there comes the logic part, but that's rather hard for most people to see things objectively.

As for disobeying unjust laws, we'd have to consider the damage being done. Think about something like the Fugitive Slave Law.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
No talking to girls? That's the best doomsday scenario you could come up with for a hardcore Christian? Why not ask him what he'd do if he were required by law to perform an abortion every day? Or to publicly reject God and worship an idol? Or if he had to vote Democrat for the rest of his life? Your hypothetical law just wasn't offensive enough to his own morals. I think most legal positivists like this guy have a point where they wouldn't follow "the Law".

[/ QUOTE ]

He's actually a pretty liberal guy and is pro-choice. That's why I was kind of shocked by his answer. The reason I didn't want to make a more extreme law is because I wanted it to be something that is manageable but still ridiculous. It's not insane to think that we shouldn't drink alcohol until we're 21, but it's very arbitrary and senseless.

I take your point though. I would imagine that he would say that he would try not to break the law in public or something like that. But then he would just say that our laws aren't that unjust and it is reasonable to follow them.

I dunno, the basic problem I have is he needs a moral authority. That could be his pastor, the state, or God. How do I explain to him why I don't think an outside moral authority has any more validity than my own moral code?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, the basic problem I have is he needs a moral authority. That could be his pastor, the state, or God. How do I explain to him why I don't think an outside moral authority has any more validity than my own moral code?

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone follows their own moral code including him. His moral code just happens to be that he should obey the law, presumably he considers that its better to obey bad laws then to break them.

chez

[TomTom]

Geeze, this has all been covered long long ago:

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected, whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us in many cases, of the benefit of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation, and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & Perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. — And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, the basic problem I have is he needs a moral authority. That could be his pastor, the state, or God. How do I explain to him why I don't think an outside moral authority has any more validity than my own moral code?

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone follows their own moral code including him. His moral code just happens to be that he should obey the law, presumably he considers that its better to obey bad laws then to break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a brilliant way of putting it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, the basic problem I have is he needs a moral authority. That could be his pastor, the state, or God. How do I explain to him why I don't think an outside moral authority has any more validity than my own moral code?

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone follows their own moral code including him. His moral code just happens to be that he should obey the law, presumably he considers that its better to obey bad laws then to break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a brilliant way of putting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, How does he deal with the paradox when laws from God conflict with laws from man? It seems to me that it would be hyppoctritical to obey almost all laws except for a select few that his religion tell him are wrong, and not use his religious beliefs to determine right from wrong otherwise.

What are so special about man made laws in which no one is harmed (or only consenting adults are involved) when they are broken? Does he have a well thought out philosophy in how he submits to man made laws or is he following beliefs that were indoctrinated into him?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, How does he deal with the paradox when laws from God conflict with laws from man? It seems to me that it would be hyppoctritical to obey almost all laws except for a select few that his religion tell him are wrong, and not use his religious beliefs to determine right from wrong otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me an example of such a law?

[ QUOTE ]

What are so special about man made laws in which no one is harmed (or only consenting adults are involved) when they are broken? Does he have a well thought out philosophy in how he submits to man made laws or is he following beliefs that were indoctrinated into him?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he just trusts authority. I think he says, "I'm sure there is a good reason for X."

He definitely does not have a well thought out philosophy about these things because every time I asked him a tough question he says he had to "ask his pastor" about it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, How does he deal with the paradox when laws from God conflict with laws from man? It seems to me that it would be hyppoctritical to obey almost all laws except for a select few that his religion tell him are wrong, and not use his religious beliefs to determine right from wrong otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me an example of such a law?



[/ QUOTE ]

It might be difficult for me to come up with an example that pertains to his actual behavior, but it will be easier to find examples where his 'beliefs' will be in conflict.

In MA it is my understanding that gay marriage has just been upheld. Therefore it is 'legal'. Does he support this now that it is 'legal' or do his 'moral beliefs' supercede his using the law as a guide to what his right and what is wrong?

Since abortion is legal he has no qualms about it or does he get a moral guide from somewhere other than 'the law' that he uses to determine right from wrong?

[almostbusto]

[ QUOTE ]

Since abortion is legal he has no qualms about it or does he get a moral guide from somewhere other than 'the law' that he uses to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a pretty silly question right? of course someone who isn't ok with abortion shouldn't change his/her mind if the law states its acceptable.

its legal to be a porn star, or a prostitute in nevada. If your mother/daughter/sister decided to become a porn star and/or prostitute would you be ok with it, on moral grounds? Maybe so, maybe not, but the answer to the question would have little to do with the legality of the act for the vast majority of people. at least that is my thinking.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Since abortion is legal he has no qualms about it or does he get a moral guide from somewhere other than 'the law' that he uses to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

this is a pretty silly question right? of course someone who isn't ok with abortion shouldn't change his/her mind if the law states its acceptable.

its legal to be a porn star, or a prostitute in nevada. If your mother/daughter/sister decided to become a porn star and/or prostitute would you be ok with it, on moral grounds? Maybe so, maybe not, but the answer to the question would have little to do with the legality of the act for the vast majority of people. at least that is my thinking.

[/ QUOTE ]

So then you would agree that people do not determine what is 'right' and what is 'wrong' based on what the prevailing law of the day is, correct?

Just because something is legal that does not make it 'right' and just because something is illegal that does not make it 'wrong'. Agree or disagree?

Does the law supercede your moral code of right and wrong or vice versa?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, How does he deal with the paradox when laws from God conflict with laws from man? It seems to me that it would be hyppoctritical to obey almost all laws except for a select few that his religion tell him are wrong, and not use his religious beliefs to determine right from wrong otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me an example of such a law?



[/ QUOTE ]

It might be difficult for me to come up with an example that pertains to his actual behavior, but it will be easier to find examples where his 'beliefs' will be in conflict.

In MA it is my understanding that gay marriage has just been upheld. Therefore it is 'legal'. Does he support this now that it is 'legal' or do his 'moral beliefs' supercede his using the law as a guide to what his right and what is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he would actually be fine with gay marriage. He doesn't believe that he has the authority to tell people what to do or what not to do in his private life. But I do suspect that he himself wouldn't get married if he happened to be gay and it happened to be against the law.

[ QUOTE ]

Since abortion is legal he has no qualms about it or does he get a moral guide from somewhere other than 'the law' that he uses to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would say that it's not his place to legislate, but that you should respect the prevailing laws in your region. If the majority of people are against something and it becomes illegal, I think he would stop doing it even if he saw nothing morally wrong with it.

Basically he has a certain moral code as a Christian, but he doesn't believe he should tell others how to act, and he does believe that you should follow the laws of where you live.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Out of curiousity, How does he deal with the paradox when laws from God conflict with laws from man? It seems to me that it would be hyppoctritical to obey almost all laws except for a select few that his religion tell him are wrong, and not use his religious beliefs to determine right from wrong otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Can you give me an example of such a law?



[/ QUOTE ]

It might be difficult for me to come up with an example that pertains to his actual behavior, but it will be easier to find examples where his 'beliefs' will be in conflict.

In MA it is my understanding that gay marriage has just been upheld. Therefore it is 'legal'. Does he support this now that it is 'legal' or do his 'moral beliefs' supercede his using the law as a guide to what his right and what is wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he would actually be fine with gay marriage. He doesn't believe that he has the authority to tell people what to do or what not to do in his private life. But I do suspect that he himself wouldn't get married if he happened to be gay and it happened to be against the law.

[ QUOTE ]

Since abortion is legal he has no qualms about it or does he get a moral guide from somewhere other than 'the law' that he uses to determine right from wrong?

[/ QUOTE ]

He would say that it's not his place to legislate, but that you should respect the prevailing laws in your region. If the majority of people are against something and it becomes illegal, I think he would stop doing it even if he saw nothing morally wrong with it.

Basically he has a certain moral code as a Christian, but he doesn't believe he should tell others how to act, and he does believe that you should follow the laws of where you live.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does he say about civil disobedience?

What would his response be if you argued that the making of (some/many) laws are a scheme to collect revenue since the government has a territorial monopoly and doesn't have any competition? What is his response when someone argues that victimless crimes are unjust?

[reup]

I think his point rings true because there was a specific reason to set up those laws. If you want to adjust the laws you must go through 'the system' and weed out the outdated reasoning that was used. Otherwise what you do is subject to whatever you want to do, which is fine if you're perfect, but not if you're not.

Subconsciously you are probably already aware of any outdated reasoning, as he may be too, and just ignore it when it registers as a BS law. He takes a different path. Where you intuit and act accordingly, he follows the rules and needs tangible justification for a sense of certainty.

Why the difference? Upbringing, hard-wired personality traits, if there is such a thing?

[AdamL]

If you break the law, you will eventually be outside of it's protection. That is one point to keep in mind, in the long run. Respecting the law regardless of your standing as a citizen is extremely important.

Your friend is a fine person, you're very lucky to know someone like that. Take care of him.

Read about Justice. Start with The Republic.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dunno, the basic problem I have is he needs a moral authority. That could be his pastor, the state, or God. How do I explain to him why I don't think an outside moral authority has any more validity than my own moral code?

[/ QUOTE ]
Everyone follows their own moral code including him. His moral code just happens to be that he should obey the law, presumably he considers that its better to obey bad laws then to break them.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a brilliant way of putting it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a dull way of putting it an it evades the question. What is a "moral code" and why does your friend think the laws are important enough to respect? Should they be? What is the correct way to deal with unjust laws? Regimes? Men? What about the fact that he thinks morality is important enough to guide his life, instead of his desires? What is the significance of the idea that one needs to be master over one's self? What about moderation vs. eros?

The questions aren't answered at all. It amounts to saying nothing. It's also false - not everyone follows their own moral code. Christianity will even tell you that we won't and can't, but can only try our best.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also false - not everyone follows their own moral code. Christianity will even tell you that we won't and can't, but can only try our best.

[/ QUOTE ]
Its what some of them claim but its false. Everyone, even NotReady and Hitler, are stuck with their moral codes.

Edit: if you just mean that we all sometimes do things we believe to be wrong (i.e. against our own moral code) then its true but really dull.

chez

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I dunno, the basic problem I have is he needs a moral authority. That could be his pastor, the state, or God. How do I explain to him why I don't think an outside moral authority has any more validity than my own moral code?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Everyone follows their own moral code including him. His moral code just happens to be that he should obey the law, presumably he considers that its better to obey bad laws then to break them.

chez


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



That's a brilliant way of putting it.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



It's a dull way of putting it an it evades the question. What is a "moral code" and why does your friend think the laws are important enough to respect? Should they be? What is the correct way to deal with unjust laws? Regimes? Men? What about the fact that he thinks morality is important enough to guide his life, instead of his desires? What is the significance of the idea that one needs to be master over one's self? What about moderation vs. eros?

The questions aren't answered at all. It amounts to saying nothing.

[/ QUOTE ]
It answers the question that was asked. Admitedly it was a dull question generated by someone (not the op) who hadn't thought about what he was claiming.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
If you break the law, you will eventually be outside of it's protection. That is one point to keep in mind, in the long run. Respecting the law regardless of your standing as a citizen is extremely important.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't agree that breaking the law sets you outside of its protection. Could you elaborate on that? I jaywalk all the time and speed on the freeway from time to time, but I'm still pretty confident that that law protects me from a lot of things.

[ QUOTE ]

Your friend is a fine person, you're very lucky to know someone like that. Take care of him.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, he's a great guy. I would like to think that I'm also a great guy though /images/graemlins/smile.gif.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

It's a dull way of putting it an it evades the question. What is a "moral code" and why does your friend think the laws are important enough to respect? Should they be? What is the correct way to deal with unjust laws? Regimes? Men? What about the fact that he thinks morality is important enough to guide his life, instead of his desires? What is the significance of the idea that one needs to be master over one's self? What about moderation vs. eros?

[/ QUOTE ]

You raise a lot of points here. I think it was a good way of phrasing the situation. A moral code is simply an internal system that tells you what is right and wrong. His
morality tells him that all laws must be respected and followed. I agree that we should respect all laws, but I realize that some laws have been made into political issues and don't carry much validity. I will not go around flagrantly breaking any laws, but if I believe that I'm doing nobody harm and there is no way my actions can impact another person I will consider breaking a law.

I kind of take offense at your statement that he lets morality guide his life and not his desires. This seems to be implying that somehow I am an amoral person who bends his beliefs at a whim. This couldn't be farther from the truth. I let my morality guide my life, but my morality and his morality don't coincide. I am also willing to change my moral code if I'm presented with evidence that my thinking is flawed. I'm afraid that he doesn't reflect on his beliefs enough to change them. What if he holds a mistaken view?

[ QUOTE ]

The questions aren't answered at all. It amounts to saying nothing. It's also false - not everyone follows their own moral code. Christianity will even tell you that we won't and can't, but can only try our best.

[/ QUOTE ]

Presumably your moral code is to follow whatever Christianity tells you. Just because you've adopted a singular outside moral code doesn't mean that it isn't yours.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that breaking the law sets you outside of its protection. Could you elaborate on that? I jaywalk all the time and speed on the freeway from time to time, but I'm still pretty confident that that law protects me from a lot of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you noticed that many other people as well jaywalk and speed on the freeway? To the degree that one person breaks the law others are likely to follow suit, don't you think?

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
A moral code is simply an internal system that tells you what is right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is right and wrong then?

[ QUOTE ]
His
morality tells him that all laws must be respected and followed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes -

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that we should respect all laws, but I realize that some laws have been made into political issues and don't carry much validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e., you are aware that there is such a dilemma as whether it is right or wrong to obey unjust laws, and have an opinion based on who knows what. So does he, right? It just is a different opinion. He thinks it is more important for the law to be respected above personal judgement - he thinks it has authority. You don't break laws because either you agree with them, or you fear the consequences. He doesn't break laws because they are laws, and laws should be respected. I don't know him personally but don't assume such people are foolishly obeying silly laws. There is a whole process of reasoning associated with lawful convictions which you haven't shown any understanding of yet. Do you think ceremonies are foolish? Or what about laws such as those requiring a citizen to stand for national anthems, or attend school until a certain age?

[ QUOTE ]
I kind of take offense at your statement that he lets morality guide his life and not his desires.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd advise you not do do that, no offense is there. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[ QUOTE ]
This seems to be implying that somehow I am an amoral person who bends his beliefs at a whim.

[/ QUOTE ]

It doesn't do that, you're seeing phantoms. I gather anyone asking questions like "Should we abide by unjust laws" has a moral character. Criminals don't ask for permission or for speeches.

[ QUOTE ]
Presumably your moral code is to follow whatever Christianity tells you. Just because you've adopted a singular outside moral code doesn't mean that it isn't yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong presumption, firstly. The second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree that breaking the law sets you outside of its protection. Could you elaborate on that? I jaywalk all the time and speed on the freeway from time to time, but I'm still pretty confident that that law protects me from a lot of things.

[/ QUOTE ]

Haven't you noticed that many other people as well jaywalk and speed on the freeway? To the degree that one person breaks the law others are likely to follow suit, don't you think?

[/ QUOTE ]

But how does this "set me outside of the law's protection"?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A moral code is simply an internal system that tells you what is right and wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is right and wrong then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on the situation /images/graemlins/smile.gif. "Do unto others . . ." and all that. I don't think any singular act is always right or always wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I agree that we should respect all laws, but I realize that some laws have been made into political issues and don't carry much validity.

[/ QUOTE ]

i.e., you are aware that there is such a dilemma as whether it is right or wrong to obey unjust laws, and have an opinion based on who knows what. So does he, right? It just is a different opinion. He thinks it is more important for the law to be respected above personal judgement - he thinks it has authority. You don't break laws because either you agree with them, or you fear the consequences. He doesn't break laws because they are laws, and laws should be respected. I don't know him personally but don't assume such people are foolishly obeying silly laws. There is a whole process of reasoning associated with lawful convictions which you haven't shown any understanding of yet. Do you think ceremonies are foolish? Or what about laws such as those requiring a citizen to stand for national anthems, or attend school until a certain age?

[/ QUOTE ]

Shouldn't we try to understand the spirit of the law though? Can't we try to determine the purpose of the law and hold to that higher purpose? To go back to the drinking example, he is a very responsible person. One would assume that the drinking age is in place so that minors don't go out of control and pose a danger to themselves. I doubt having a sip of alcohol 6 months before his 21st birthday would have been all that bad for him or anyone else. I just don't see any justification for that other than "the law says so".

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Presumably your moral code is to follow whatever Christianity tells you. Just because you've adopted a singular outside moral code doesn't mean that it isn't yours.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wrong presumption, firstly. The second sentence doesn't make sense to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

What I meant is that you either formulate your own rules or you adopt some outside rules. But either way, at some point they become your rules. I guess I would argue that I look at the laws and try to understand them and apply them where they seem rational. I don't think everything is black and white.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
how does this "set me outside of the law's protection"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Through spreading an attitude about the law that must erode it. No you won't magically be outside protection immediately, but that's not what you should care about most really imo.

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there also a right and wrong that is not dependant on a situation? Or is there an idea of right and wrong which is the thing checked on for guidance in each situation, to come to the "right" choice?

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any singular act is always right or always wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not any singular act at all? You mean you can't think of any singular act that can ever be said "is always right"? What about that children ought to be treated justly? Or a woman should never be murdered by her husband?

Or maybe you mean that multiple actions are required to produce a "right action"? I don't understand.

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't we try to understand the spirit of the law though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. But you asked if we should abide by unjust laws. I was trying to introduce you to the huge dialogue that it leads to. You didn't say "is jaywalking bad for my friend?" or "is drinking before your 21st birthday bad for me?" That issue of the laws and politics and the question of justice is more interesting.

As for morality and self, rules becoming mine, I think rather the moral law owns me than vice versa. It was around before me and will be around long after I'm gone

[Al Mirpuri]

Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.

Here in the United Kingdom, we have a very comprehensive welfare system but the healthy moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the ill to go to hospital, those without children moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of state schools so that other people's children can get an education. Nobody is allowed an opt out. If we all broke the law when it suited us then: anarchy.

I liked your post. I think I would like your friend.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.

Here in the United Kingdom, we have a very comprehensive welfare system but the healthy moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the ill to go to hospital, those without children moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of state schools so that other people's children can get an education. Nobody is allowed an opt out. If we all broke the law when it suited us then: anarchy.

I liked your post. I think I would like your friend.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm so very pleased I don't live in your country, it sounds horrible.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how does this "set me outside of the law's protection"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Through spreading an attitude about the law that must erode it. No you won't magically be outside protection immediately, but that's not what you should care about most really imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if that is what I want if I believe the law is unjust? I thought you meant that I would be outside of the protection of all laws, not just the law that I am breaking. I would be fine with that.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there also a right and wrong that is not dependant on a situation? Or is there an idea of right and wrong which is the thing checked on for guidance in each situation, to come to the "right" choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I would say that there is always a 'better' and a 'worse' but not necessarily a right and a wrong. Maybe I'm a moral relativist, I don't know. I believe in principles that should be checked on for guidance but not necessarily rules.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any singular act is always right or always wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not any singular act at all? You mean you can't think of any singular act that can ever be said "is always right"? What about that children ought to be treated justly? Or a woman should never be murdered by her husband?

Or maybe you mean that multiple actions are required to produce a "right action"? I don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Children ought to be treated justly" is a very broad statement and of course I would agree with it. But that's not a singular act. If you gave me a specific instance of child molestation or something like that maybe I could give you an answer about whether it is right or wrong.

I can conceive of scenarios where I would think it's ok for a woman to be murdered by her husband. If the woman was about to kill her child, I think the husband would be justified in killing his wife.

I'm sure there are some things that I would say are "always right" or "always wrong" but I'm fairly sure there are very very few of these situations.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't we try to understand the spirit of the law though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. But you asked if we should abide by unjust laws. I was trying to introduce you to the huge dialogue that it leads to. You didn't say "is jaywalking bad for my friend?" or "is drinking before your 21st birthday bad for me?" That issue of the laws and politics and the question of justice is more interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

[ QUOTE ]

As for morality and self, rules becoming mine, I think rather the moral law owns me than vice versa. It was around before me and will be around long after I'm gone

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not choose this ultimate moral law though? Where did you learn it from? How can you be sure it's accurate?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that disobeying an unjust law and acting illegally?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that disobeying an unjust law and acting illegally?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite right. I need to modify my position. Theoretically, in order to maintain consistency I am going to have to forgo civil disobedience but yet practically, I know that the if you 'kick up a fuss' you are more likely to get what you want...

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that disobeying an unjust law and acting illegally?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite right. I need to modify my position. Theoretically, in order to maintain consistency I am going to have to forgo civil disobedience but yet practically, I know that the if you 'kick up a fuss' you are more likely to get what you want...

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize what a hole this position puts you in though, don't you? You'll end up following rules you know are probably incorrect and you will contribute to others having to abide by that same unjust rule.

The government was supposedly created for the people, so if a significant number of people disagree with the rule shouldn't they try to bring publicity to their cause?

[ALawPoker]

Addressing the OP...

I personally don't see much point in obeying the law other than when it's logistically necessary. But, I feel like if everyone respected the law the way your friend did, one benefit is there would be less severe laws.

People stand for some things being illegal only because it's so easy to break. No one (well, very few) really have a problem with underage college students drinking a beer. But people still want the law for various reasons. If the ramifications of having certain laws were "[censored], this sucks" then I'm sure more people would stand up for their interests. But when the law is just a mild inconvenience, people don't really care.

If pot were actually impossible to smoke because of the law, I'm sure you would see the law changed.

So one could say the law is made based on the understanding that people can break it as they see fit. So you could also say anyone who does not break it here and there is I guess "over-obeying" it. They're obeying the letter of the law when you can argue that the spirit is most important. But I think you could also say that people who don't break the law work towards making laws a better mirror of our actual moral preferences.

I wouldn't be too concerned with like "disproving" your friend or whatever. He's entitled to value the law just like I'm entitled to value my front door if I really want to. You can explain to him that you don't see any objective merit in the laws and you think he might be happier if he re-thought why he valued them. But at the end of the day if he respects the law then he respects the law.

[sexypanda]

You guys should check out Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. It's a very interesting article that discusses this exact issue:

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.

Here in the United Kingdom, we have a very comprehensive welfare system but the healthy moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the ill to go to hospital, those without children moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of state schools so that other people's children can get an education. Nobody is allowed an opt out. If we all broke the law when it suited us then: anarchy.

I liked your post. I think I would like your friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

You use the word anarchy like it is a bad word. I am an anarchist and think the sooner we achieve anarchy the better.

When there is an unjust law why is it better to start writing letters in the hope that the law may be changed at some point in the distant future? Why should I have to suffer injustice?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.

Here in the United Kingdom, we have a very comprehensive welfare system but the healthy moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the ill to go to hospital, those without children moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of state schools so that other people's children can get an education. Nobody is allowed an opt out. If we all broke the law when it suited us then: anarchy.

I liked your post. I think I would like your friend.

[/ QUOTE ]

You use the word anarchy like it is a bad word. I am an anarchist and think the sooner we achieve anarchy the better.

When there is an unjust law why is it better to start writing letters in the hope that the law may be changed at some point in the distant future? Why should I have to suffer injustice?

[/ QUOTE ]
The huge mistake being made is believing that a healthy democracy can be sustained by people obeying the rules and arguing for change.

Maybe in utopia but in the real world it simply doesn't work, governments love making laws and they just keep on and on making them until they hit too much resistence. Some of these laws are either bad in principle or badly implemented and the only real pressures on governments to make good laws is a) the ballot box and b) an inability to enforce bad laws. The ballot box is far too crude for numerous reasons so outside utopia we have to keep the government in check by ignoring bad laws - in the extreme we could have a moral duty to disobey bad laws - 'only obeying orders' is not an excuse even if those orders have legal status.

chez

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
But what if that is what I want if I believe the law is unjust? I thought you meant that I would be outside of the protection of all laws, not just the law that I am breaking. I would be fine with that.

[/ QUOTE ]

I do in fact mean the whole law. Did you think I was only considering whether it is good to break "unjust laws" (which apparently for you are things like jaywalking and the legal drinking age - lol) based on the calculation of your instant punishment vs. gratification? That is precisely what is wrong with your beliefs. You have no respect for the small within the great, which indicates you are simply unaware of how great that which you tread on so lightly may be. Of course, it isn't all that powerful anymore. The lion is shaved and bound and this thread is part of that disease.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess I would say that there is always a 'better' and a 'worse' but not necessarily a right and a wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

By what standard are things better or worse?

[ QUOTE ]
If you gave me a specific instance of child molestation or something like that maybe I could give you an answer about whether it is right or wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming that no singular act can be ever called right or wrong. That you want an example of a child molestation to tell me whether is right or wrong is really missing the point. It is always wrong.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there are some things that I would say are "always right" or "always wrong" but I'm fairly sure there are very very few of these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is false. I think you haven't really thought about it long enough, or looked for an education in the subject.

[ QUOTE ]
Did you not choose this ultimate moral law though? Where did you learn it from? How can you be sure it's accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I choose to obey it. That is the extent of it. I choose to be a good person and obey the moral law. It is not mine, I am pledging myself to it. I didn't invent it or colour it to suit me. It isn't my own idea or catered to my particular faults and desires. It is simply there, and has been for a long time, and I can see that it is nobler than my insignificant reasons for breaking it. I also can see clearly (thankfully) that is much better for my soul to be morally good than to calculate my personal advantage before acting according to the moral law.

How can I be sure it is accurate - I don't think it really needs much defense, I was aware of the moral law long before I understood why it is accurate and have found that following it reveals plenty. Sometimes my explanations for why some things are as they are turn out wrong, but the moral law stands untouched. It doesn't depend on my ability to divine it.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did you not choose this ultimate moral law though? Where did you learn it from? How can you be sure it's accurate?

[/ QUOTE ]

I choose to obey it. That is the extent of it. I choose to be a good person and obey the moral law. It is not mine, I am pledging myself to it. I didn't invent it or colour it to suit me. It isn't my own idea or catered to my particular faults and desires. It is simply there, and has been for a long time, and I can see that it is nobler than my insignificant reasons for breaking it. I also can see clearly (thankfully) that is much better for my soul to be morally good than to calculate my personal advantage before acting according to the moral law.

How can I be sure it is accurate - I don't think it really needs much defense, I was aware of the moral law long before I understood why it is accurate and have found that following it reveals plenty. Sometimes my explanations for why some things are as they are turn out wrong, but the moral law stands untouched. It doesn't depend on my ability to divine it.

[/ QUOTE ]

This sounds an awful lot like the way people explain religion and God.

How do you explain all the moral disagreements that people have?

Are you the most morally enlightened person on the planet or are there people more morally enlightened than you? How do you know who is right when 2 or more morally enlightened people disagree if there is but one exact morally correct choice and action at all times?

Have you ever made a moral mistake? Do you think you will make any in the future?

How do you 'know' what is right when faced with difficult circumstances?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]

I do in fact mean the whole law. Did you think I was only considering whether it is good to break "unjust laws" (which apparently for you are things like jaywalking and the legal drinking age - lol) based on the calculation of your instant punishment vs. gratification? That is precisely what is wrong with your beliefs. You have no respect for the small within the great, which indicates you are simply unaware of how great that which you tread on so lightly may be. Of course, it isn't all that powerful anymore. The lion is shaved and bound and this thread is part of that disease.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is the whole point of the thread. By your system, I will be following laws that I believe to be unjust. I'm not calculating things based on my punishment vs. my reward. I think that giving anybody a ticket for crossing the street where there are no cars is ridiculous. I know the law is there to protect pedestrians and drivers. But if I look both ways, it's 3am, and there are no cars on the road, I'm fairly confident that I'm not acting immorally.

All laws aren't good laws. Period. This whole talk of I have no respect for the small within the great is nonsense. You can claim that I'm not righteous enough to realize which laws are ridiculous, but some laws are just plain bad laws.

What about that guy who went to jail for having sex with his girlfriend when he was 17 and she was 16? When he turned 17 was he supposed to end his relationship because it was immoral all of a sudden?

[ QUOTE ]
By what standard are things better or worse?

[/ QUOTE ]

By how much damage they cause others and yourself.

[ QUOTE ]

I was trying to point out the absurdity of claiming that no singular act can be ever called right or wrong. That you want an example of a child molestation to tell me whether is right or wrong is really missing the point. It is always wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Everything isn't absolute like that though. Every act isn't either good or bad. You might believe it is bad to do drugs. But what if I'm an undercover officer trying to catch drug dealers and they will be suspicious if I don't take a hit? Should I abstain from doing one line of cocaine because it is immoral even if it would jeopardize my safety and the investigation?

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure there are some things that I would say are "always right" or "always wrong" but I'm fairly sure there are very very few of these situations.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is false. I think you haven't really thought about it long enough, or looked for an education in the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]

List ten general actions that you think are always right or always wrong.

[ QUOTE ]

I choose to obey it. That is the extent of it. I choose to be a good person and obey the moral law. It is not mine, I am pledging myself to it. I didn't invent it or colour it to suit me. It isn't my own idea or catered to my particular faults and desires. It is simply there, and has been for a long time, and I can see that it is nobler than my insignificant reasons for breaking it. I also can see clearly (thankfully) that is much better for my soul to be morally good than to calculate my personal advantage before acting according to the moral law.

[/ QUOTE ]

So everyone agrees on this moral law? Where did you hear of this law? Was it innate? You're basically saying that laws they had 2000 years ago are still applicable today.

[ QUOTE ]

How can I be sure it is accurate - I don't think it really needs much defense, I was aware of the moral law long before I understood why it is accurate and have found that following it reveals plenty. Sometimes my explanations for why some things are as they are turn out wrong, but the moral law stands untouched. It doesn't depend on my ability to divine it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Where can I get this blueprint for life? Different denominations of the same religion can't even decide on one way of acting.

[AdamL]

"Damage" is really shallow and insufficient but at least a starting place for some kind of standard of good and bad.

No, I won't do the highschool debate with you and meet each stupid challenge like listing 10 actions which are just (it is not hard, either, and I think it's funny you need it listed for you - lol) nor am I going to do the whole idiot routine with the other fellow because duh, of course I know people disagree on moral law and don't think I'm the most enlightened person ever. Really not the words of someone seeking knowledge but rather trying to win their viewpoint for their own gratification.

To be honest I think I underestimated the challenge ahead of me here. But you have the Plato reference.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
I do in fact mean the whole law. Did you think I was only considering whether it is good to break "unjust laws"

[/ QUOTE ]
maybe you should read the thread title.
[ QUOTE ]
(which apparently for you are things like jaywalking and the legal drinking age - lol)

[/ QUOTE ]
These laws aren't unjust?
[ QUOTE ]
You have no respect for the small within the great, which indicates you are simply unaware of how great that which you tread on so lightly may be. Of course, it isn't all that powerful anymore. The lion is shaved and bound and this thread is part of that disease.


[/ QUOTE ]
What the hell are you talking about here?
[ QUOTE ]
That is false. I think you haven't really thought about it long enough, or looked for an education in the subject.

[/ QUOTE ]
Then perhaps you can explain it for us smart guy.
[ QUOTE ]
I choose to be a good person and obey the moral law.

[/ QUOTE ]
What is this moral law?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
"Damage" is really shallow and insufficient but at least a starting place for some kind of standard of good and bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

So could you please define right and wrong for me? I mean, what is a 'good' action and what is a 'bad' action. You might think I'm being facetious, but I would honestly like to hear your answer here.

[ QUOTE ]

No, I won't do the highschool debate with you and meet each stupid challenge like listing 10 actions which are just (it is not hard, either, and I think it's funny you need it listed for you - lol)

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think it's a 'high school challenge'. I'm not talking about 10 specific scenarios, I mean 10 actions in general. I'm sure you would say murder, rape, and child molestation, but I really doubt that you could come up with too many more. There just aren't that many actions that are inherently 'evil'.

[ QUOTE ]
nor am I going to do the whole idiot routine with the other fellow because duh, of course I know people disagree on moral law and don't think I'm the most enlightened person ever. Really not the words of someone seeking knowledge but rather trying to win their viewpoint for their own gratification.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think we were just trying to point out that the absolute 'moral law' you refer to isn't absolute or agreed upon. We're trying to show you that there is actually no way of choosing which moral law to follow rationally. It's comes down to a faith based choice.

[AdamL]

But Taraz, I'm not asking to be shown anything. I'm trying to tell you what I think I ought to regarding your question. What is the point in asking, you ought to consider why you did. But don't worry about my state of information, I'm fine. Take the advice instead.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
But Taraz, I'm not asking to be shown anything. I'm trying to tell you what I think I ought to regarding your question. What is the point in asking, you ought to consider why you did. But don't worry about my state of information, I'm fine. Take the advice instead.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well the conversation has shifted a little, I will admit that.

I came into this thread asking others who shared my view to help me flesh it out and articulate it better. People, including you, have helped me do that, and now I'm spitting it out /images/graemlins/smile.gif. The title of this thread was more of an attention grabber than an actual question I was asking. In my OP I pretty much state that I don't think we should abide by unjust laws all the time.

With respect to our exchanges, I hope it is clear that I'm genuinely interested in my friend's logic and yours. I truly don't get it and I really want to. I hope that you will answer some of the questions I posed in previous posts because I don't like failing to understand other people's positions.

[GoodCallYouWin]

"There just aren't that many actions that are inherently 'evil'. "

Nothing is inherently evil, good and bad are subjective terms.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
"There just aren't that many actions that are inherently 'evil'. "

Nothing is inherently evil, good and bad are subjective terms.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was exactly my point.

[AdamL]

[ QUOTE ]
With respect to our exchanges, I hope it is clear that I'm genuinely interested in my friend's logic and yours. I truly don't get it and I really want to. I hope that you will answer some of the questions I posed in previous posts because I don't like failing to understand other people's positions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Firstly, it's not clear at all. Because you need to also have some kind of humility that, although you believe in your own convictions, you recognize you don't understand the subject others are on about (which is powerful enough, you've recognized). Like, a good first step would be to grab the book mentioned above and talk about that.

Personally, I haven't really understood now why you are asking about this stuff, I thought it was because you hadn't made up your own mind yet but instead. If you just want to further refine and articulate your own opinion, I don't need to be here. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

So, I am genuinely interested in the subject, I know a fair bit about it and can help you find the resources you need. If you are genuinely interested, you know where I am!