Loud and clear! But I've missed their - your - argument. No need to repeat it, but be good enough to point me back towards it. — tim wood

Hmmm, it seems so foreign to me that I would barely know where to begin. I enjoy discussing the minutia of morality, but in real life I view morality as being most significant when it is difficult. If it is just the way I would behave anyway, then why bother calling it morality. Therefor the need to break a law to live by a higher "moral law" would actually be definitionally positive moral behavior (by my standard).

Take Schindler (from Schindler's List) as an easy example. Schindler's action were more impressively moral BECAUSE they were illegal. Notice too that his behavior was not just a little illegal (like drugs), it was death penalty stuff. That only increased the positive morality of his decision.

If you can explain to me why Schindler's actions were immoral, then maybe I will understand where you are coming from.

Oh and to simplify my understanding of morality - Good moral behavior SHOULD be done. Bad moral behavior SHOULD NOT be done. Notice that makes the lesser of two evils (assuming only 2 options) a GOOD moral decision.

I submit you have a research problem. I point you toward Plato's Crito and Phaedrus. Kant's Groundworks for a Metapysics of Morals. Thoreau, pretty much anything. MLK Letter from Birmingham Jail. Gandhi. But morality is in almost all philosophy. Try looking for it. — tim wood

I don't suppose you can point me to anything written by any of these guys that explicitly states "breaking the law is always immoral"?

I am not going read those works in their entirety (again for MLK and Gandhi) just because you say it is there. Surely you know of one sentence that supports your argument?

Doesn't Thoreau actually describe it as "a duty" to disobey unjust laws? I don't know Kant well enough, but wouldn't every "duty" be a positive moral behavior?

But morality is in almost all philosophy. Try looking for it. — tim wood

You may have been responding to something more specific, but I am not worried about finding morality in these works. It is the specific claim that "it is always immoral to break the law" that we need to find. One can find a philosopher to support almost any idea, but that is how EXTREME I find "it is always immoral to break the law"; I am not sure a single one of these philosophers will provide any DIRECT support (my philosophy knowledge is weak at best, so you could definitely get me with a gotcha! here; but your claim is so bizarre to me that I am willing to risk it).

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I see not being able to agree on what morality is hasn't prevented anyone from considering progress can be made in a debate about whether something is it or not.

It is the specific claim that "it is always immoral to break the law" that we need to find. — ZhouBoTong

It is always UNETHICAL to break the law. Personal beliefs may render the ethics immoral to the individual.

I'm curious, if something being immoral doesn't necessarily mean one should not do it (breaking a law for example), then what information does the term convey?

If I say to you X is immoral, what do you now know about X that you did not before?

'm curious, if something being immoral doesn't necessarily mean one should not do it (breaking a law for example), then what information does the term convey?

If I say to you X is immoral, what do you now know about X that you did not before? — Isaac

law is about right and wrong, and morality is about what is good and bad. They do not coincide exactly.

Most people believe that we are naturally free, and laws impose restrictions. Legality is defined by a political system. In fact, the natural political state is totalitarianism, but rulers found that their subjects rebelled, and asked philosophers, 'what must I do to stop my subjects rebelling?' The rules imposed by law are those which society found necessary to preserve peace. So in fact laws exist not to restrict freedom, but to keep the peace. One may disagree with their reasoning, but that is how they are made.

Those rules do not necessarily coincide with a persons morality. A person may believe that it is good not to drive a car faster than 20mph, because if you go any faster, you might be unable to avoid hitting wildlife on the road. In fact I have known people that believe this (usually vegans).

However, if laws dictate that others can drive much faster, this is a hazard, in fact, you can be arrested on the freeway for driving too slow. It isn't a common problem, but it did happen to me once, I was in an unfamiliar area, and I got pulled over for driving too slow.

I could argue that what I was doing was good, but it was still illegal, because if people drove at 20mph when everyone else is driving at 70mph, people would get hurt. My morality says going slow is a good thing. The law requires something different to keep the peace.

I don't understand how your idiosyncratic history of law is related to my post? I asked how, if some immoral act should nonetheless be done, the term 'immoral' carries any actual information. I can't see a linked between that question and your personal definition of the terms.

Confusion aside, what evidence are you drawing on to support your claims that "In fact, the natural political state is totalitarianism, but rulers found that their subjects rebelled, and asked philosophers, 'what must I do to stop my subjects rebelling?'"?

The rules imposed by law are those which society found necessary to preserve peace. — ernestm

This seems on the face of it to be unlikely. In democracies like the ones I imagine most of of us live in, the laws are proposed by prospective governments in order to attract votes, and if elected they are expected to enact those laws. I can't really see how that system links to 'peace'. It seems entirely designed to ensure that those actions which it is popular to prohibit become prohibited. The cause of that popularity is not in any way ensured.

What I am trhying to draw for you, in something that otherwise require 200,000 words, is a differentiation between the origin of law, and the origin of morality. While you make disagree with the results, laws were originally designed because the natural state, before the concept of law is brought into a government, is for the ruler to decide whatever he wants in dictatorial style, and no one has any freedom at all. The dictator controls all. What happens is a consequence is that the edicts cause rebellion and war. So now, skipping forward 50,00 words, laws originate, not as strictures on the citizens, but as remnants of what strictures the government cannot avoid without disturbing the peace.

Subsequently there is corruption, both legally and morally. The point Im making is that the origins of both moral and legal systems are entirely separate. There's no reason to expect them to be the same.

laws were originally designed because the natural state, before the concept of law is brought into a government, is for the ruler to decide whatever he wants in dictatorial style, and no one has any freedom at all. The dictator controls all. What happens is a consequence is that the edicts cause rebellion and war. — ernestm

I didn't ask you to re-state your assertion, I asked what evidence you were basing it on, how have you reached this conclusion?

The point Im making is that the origins of both moral and legal systems are entirely separate. There's no reason to expect them to be the same. — ernestm

I agree. I don't follow how that is related either to the point I was making about the meaning of the term "immoral", nor to the question of why it is necessarily immoral to break the law.

I asked what evidence you were basing it on, — Isaac

Oh. thats easy. Its called history.

Oh. thats easy. Its called history. — ernestm

What kind of an answer is that? I presumed your evidence was somewhere in history, having ruled out the possibility of it being located in the future! I was hoping for something a bit more specific.

What kind of an answer is that? I presumed your evidence was somewhere in history, having ruled out the possibility of it being located in the future! I was hoping for something a bit more specific. — Isaac

What historians and legal scholars generally note, sir, is that the earliest system of authority is tribal. Perhaps with justifications such as contact with dead spirits, or whatever, but whatever the case, the tribe chief has absolute authority and can tell anyone to do anything, with force if necessary, and no one else can overrule it for any reason. It persisted in Australia and Africa until recently.

After that, the next system of authority was despotic, and frequently the despot was also considered a God. Besides a tiny amount of democracy which was repeatedly wiped out, this condition persisted from Mesopatamia through China and Egypt until:
* 400BC, in China, when Guan-Zhong formed the first system of law there (totally unknown to virtually the entire West ever since); but it was wiped out by the era of a hundred kingdoms, and then the early and middle dynasties; and law did not emerge as something in any way independent of the emperor's authority until Neoconfucianists such as Cheng Yi in the 11th century; and even then, the emperor still had god like power.
* in the West, until ~550AD, when finally Emperor Justinian formed the first codified system of law that could not be overturned at whim by higher officials. Sadly, the Roman Empire almost immediately fell apart and was replaced by the Holy Roman Empire and reverted to feudalism, which is not much more than tribalism. that continued through the dark ages until Aquinas' Summa in 1274.
* In the Middle East, divine law was under the bizarre interpretations of the church without any formalization until Averroes in the 12th century.
* And in the Americas, tribal and despotic rule still persists in some parts, but was most significantly curtailed, in the 18th century, by the formation of the United States

That is to say, the majority of history provides very little recognition of the law you assume to be so obvious. There were rules and people who enforced them here and there, but even in most of those cases it was decided by ad hoc decisions that could be over-ruled at whim, and this abstraction you folks believe should somehow be equivalent to morality is rather, not to say the least, a flash in the pan in ~3500 years of recorded history.

the tribe chief has absolute authority and can tell anyone to do anything, with force if necessary, and no one else can overrule it for any reason. It persisted in Australia and Africa until recently. — ernestm

Where on earth are you getting this from? If you can find me a single example of a tribal chief wielding absolute authority I'd be surprised, let alone a general trend. Hunter-gatherers are renowned for their strictly enforced egalitarianism. Just Google "hunter-gather political system", or alternatively do...well... any research whatsoever...

if there is no system of authority, then there is no law at all, because no one can enforce it. I speak only of what is. Obviously, if you want to speak about nomadic life, then there is no law at all. So what.

if there is no system of authority, then there is no law at all, because no one can enforce it. — ernestm

Laws can be derived and enforced communally, no authority is required. Meat-sharing, for example, is strictly enforced in most hunter gatherer communities. It is not enforced by the 'chief', nor is the rule determined by him. The rule is both determined and enforced by the community as a whole.

So what. — ernestm

You initially responded to my comment. I presumed you had an argument to make. You first made the claim that laws are to keep the peace, I asked you what mechanism caused his when laws are, in fact, created by governments and there doesn't seem to be any reason why they should all be about peace. We only got sidetracked into this because you made the outrageous suggestion that all tribes were headed by authoritarian megalomaniacs, I remain in the dark as to why.

Meat-sharing, for example, is strictly enforced in most hunter gatherer communities. It is not enforced by the 'chief', nor is the rule determined by him. The rule is both determined and enforced by the community as a whole. — Isaac

thats a custom, not a law. There is no defined requirement, no defined punishment, and no defined arbitration or judge in case of dispute. its totally arbitrary and depends on the individual choices.

You might as well argue holding a door open for a lady is a law.

thats a custom, not a law. There is no defined requirement and no defined punishment, its totally arbitrary. — ernestm

Remind me again why we're discussing the correct terminology? And why does a lack of definition mean "totally arbitrary", is there nothing in between?

Remind me again why we're discussing the correct terminology? And why does a lack of definition mean "totally arbitrary", is there nothing in between? — Isaac

Yes, it is now a law to give up your seat in a bus to someone of the fairer sex. Have a nice day then.

Would you be happier had I wrote, "There is always an immorality that attends breaking any law, that belongs because it is a law that is being broken." — tim wood

Nope. Changes nothing. What you need to do is show that given a binary decision, both choices ARE immoral. That doesn't make any sense to me. This is an extreme example, but if I am told that I must kill my mother or the whole world dies (and I have reason to believe it), then the correct (good / right) moral decision is that I kill my mom. Like most people, I am not sure I am emotionally equipped to take the moral high ground, but the "good" moral choice is obvious.

Surely "not killing my mom" carries more moral weight with most people than J-walking? And yet in the above example it is wrong and killing is right.

I will use the Schindler example again. Following the law meant killing innocent people. Not following meant helping. In this case, following the law is CLEARLY the immoral choice.

It is always UNETHICAL to break the law. Personal beliefs may render the ethics immoral to the individual. — ernestm

The definitions of unethical and immoral strongly overlap. But my understanding is that ethics is applied by an outside force, where as morals are internal to the individual? Hopefully I am close?

In that case it may be unethical, but it is someone else's ethics, right?

Similarly, saying Goddammit is unethical. So?

I can admit that by common understanding (I was going to say "by definition" but it really doesn't in this case), breaking laws is in some way unethical; that doesn't mean I admit it is always immoral, right? My morality disagrees with the laws, so regardless of ethics, it is not immoral?


edited for typo

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I may be wrong, but I think I speak for at least a number of contributors here when I say that we're getting more than a little fed up with you opening an argument and then just dismissing everyone's response to it with a condescending variation on "you don't understand", "come back when you’ve got something important to say". Its pathetic and it's getting tiresome. If you're not interested in discussing other people's perspectives on an issue then just stop posting.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I have presented many arguments that you-all dismiss without consideration. If you won't engage, then what am I suppose to do about it? — tim wood

Firstly, this thread is 19 pages long. No one has dismissed your arguments without consideration. They have been dismissed (where they have been dismissed at all) mostly with a perfectly reasonable degree of consideration. That you do not agree with the conclusion does not indicate a lack of consideration. As I have had said before, your incredulity is not an argument.

Secondly, my comment was mainly focussed on your condescending disinterest in other people's perspectives, not on their responses to you. You've given me a long quote claiming to represent your 'argument' (though it reads more like a series of assertions to me, but I may be missing the subtlety). What I would have expected in counter, is evidence of your having taken their positions seriously. Lead by example.

Since you troubled to ask me a direct question...

Do you believe a citizen has a moral obligation to obey the law. Yes or no. — tim wood

No. I don't see how it could be.

A law is some proscription on behaviour that some past governing body thought, for any of a variety of reasons, would be in their best interests to legislate.

Morality is not one thing to all people. To me it is the way I feel about a certain class of behaviours. For Janus I think it's something more akin to a collective agreement (but not quite, because I keep paraphrasing it incorrectly). For others it might be that which they could at the same time wish were a universal maxim. Others it might simply be the instructions in a particular book. But because laws can be written for any one of a variety of reasons, I cannot see how obeying them en masse could constitute a moral duty for any of these groups. They simply have no reason to believe that 'the law' is a sufficiently unified concept to be something about which a moral decision can be made. It would be like asking if it were moral to imprison people called John. 'People called john' is simply not a unified enough group to make any moral decision about.

So it's not that people cannot grasp the concept of 'the law' (as opposed to a law), its that people disagree with you that any moral decision can be made in respect of so nebulous a collection of proscriptions.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

On this I would say you do not know what law is or its purposes or what the duties of a citizen are. — tim wood

Well it didn't take long to get back to the condescending attitude did it? I disagree with you about what 'the law' is, so I must "not know" what it is?

If you do not acknowledge any obligation to and under law, then you're an outlaw. And if you live in society or a community, then you are parasitic or worse on that community. — tim wood

Yes, your ultra-conservatism is duly noted. It doesn't constitute an argument. Tell me why you think these things are the case, not just that you think they are.

"Morality" is a word without meaning, then? — tim wood

No. 'Morality' is a word which means different things to different people. Are you really struggling to get your head around that concept?

And if Law comes out of morality, then Law is meaningless? — tim wood

Law does not come out of morality, what on earth makes you think it does that. When a government propose a new law in their election manifesto, do you seriously think they propose it for its morality? Are you that naive?

The result is all that you have is the man with the gun telling you what to do or not do, or else. — tim wood

That is what we currently have. If I wish to do something my community disagrees with the ultimate sanction is still the man with the gun (or the most force of one sort or another). How do think we obtained our power to make laws? You think we think we gently persuaded the previous occupants to accept our rule?

But what do you say to people who argue that these concepts are meaningful, and lay out that meaning? Apparently you disregard it. — tim wood

Possibly, after a discussion, yes. What's the alternative? I simply accept the first meaning anyone happens to lay out?

Do you grasp the distinction between number, a number, and a nebulous collection of numbers? The immorality in question is not made in consideration of this or that law, but in consideration of the law itself as law. This maybe the tenth time I've argued this. Do you see it? Do you understand it? I ask because to this moment no one has shown that they have. — tim wood

And...back to the condescension. I do not agree with you. Do you even understand that concept? I do not agree that there is such a thing as 'the law'. There are laws, there is a specific law, but 'the law' is not a thing in that sense.

Challenge: you define morality/immorality. Maybe in that I'll see the error of my ways. — tim wood

We've already been through this. For me, morality is the collection of behaviours I feel are acceptable to me, those that make me feel good about myself in relation tommy role in the community (as opposed to the larger collection of behaviours which simply make me feel good in any sense). Some of those feelings will be responses programmed by my DNA, some will be instilled by my upbringing, some may even be random (we'd never know). Moral demands of others is an appeal to those feelings I presume (from experience) we share.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Characteristic ad hominem. How does your comment relate to the argument? — tim wood

I'm commenting on your tone and attitude, exactly as you are doing with me here. Ad hominem is a fallacy of avoiding or detracting from the topic by referencing characteristics of one's interlocutor. I began this latest involvement talking about the negative attitude of your responses, so the matter is currently entirely on topic insofar as these threads have such a tendency to roam a little.

And my argument has been made repeatedly above. — tim wood

Assertion is not an argument. You cannot simply claim things are the case and expect it to be accepted as an argument unless you are appealing to a common conception. It should be abundantly clear to you by now that most here do not agree with your assertions, so if you want to continue to take part in a discussion, it's no good just hysterically repeating them and telling everyone else they're stupid. You need to go back to some more fundamental axiom you think we might agree on and argue towards your position from there.

According to you, as I understand you, what morality is and what it means is whatever you feel good about, whenever you feel good about it. — tim wood

Neither does facetious caricature constitute an argument. I specifically said that morality is not "whatever I feel good about". It is a specific subset of behaviours which make me feel good about myself with regards to my role in the community. That is not "whatever I feel good about". If you want people to take your arguments seriously, then you need to return the respect by doing so with others.

Your position: no law is moral; none are based on any morality. — tim wood

Where did I say no law is moral? You claimed "law comes out of morality", the correct answer to that assertion is no, even if only one single law does not. If at least one law does not come out of morality, then it is false to say that 'law', as an entity, comes out of morality.

But what do you say to the fellow who differs with you? Clearly there's no space for reason; you've ruled that out. — tim wood

Reason what? Reason what morality is? We've tried that. It doesn't appear to be the sort of topic amenable to reason, at least not here.

It's a lesson to be learned, and not easy: you can't argue with ignorance, that requires education. And you can't argue with stupidity, period. Which is it? I left one out, the infantile - but I suppose that's a species of ignorance. — tim wood

This is what a real ad hominem looks like...if you needed an example to help you use the term correctly next time. Instead of providing counter-arguments, you just label my position stupid, ignorant and infantile.

if you'll go back to my post, you will observe a number of arguments you ignored, mostly in this: — tim wood

Let's see...

How do you know? How do you decide? — tim wood

Not an argument, a question, and one I've already answered. I know/decide based on what behaviours make me feel good about myself with regards to my role in my community.

it's something you implicitly acknowledge should be obeyed. — tim wood

An assertion, not an argument.

that "should" never goes away. It's always in force. — tim wood

As above, another assertion.

If a law can be nullified by any individual, then it's not really a law, is it! — tim wood

No one said anything about nullified. Ignored and nullified are not the same thing. That aside, this is just another assertion, and a rather odd one at that. Is a law not 'really' a law if it can be ignored? How so? A law is a rule, usually made by government, to detail what behaviour is proscribed and, often, what the punishment for transgression will be. I can't see how something like that fails to meet the criterion when someone disobeys it, or encourages others to. It is a statement of intent by the government, and remains so as long as it is in force.

Breaking the law is an attack on the social contract, especially in societies where lawful remedies are available. — tim wood

Opinion, not argument. This only works on the presumption that the law reflects the social contract and you've yet to provide a mechanism which forces it to do so. As it stands a government can pass any behavioural restriction into law so long as it is agreed upon by our elected representatives. I don't see any mechanism in there requiring all laws to mirror, or, honour the social contract, nor for them to uphold, relate to, or even consider what is moral. If there is no mechanism for laws to be forced to do this, then 'the law', which is just a collection of such individual laws, cannot possibly have acquired these properties. From whence did it aquire them?

what is the merit, the morality, of breaking the law by "doing" illegal drugs? — tim wood

Not all behaviours require moral merit to engage in, surely. It's not a question of whether the behaviour is meritous, it's a question of whether the government's decision to restrict it (in the manner they have chosen) is justified.

So, two questions and three assertions by my count. Where exactly is your actual argument? Let me give you a guide, it should look something like...

Premise - "here are some principles I think we all agree on, yes?"

Reasoning -"if you follow these principles to their logical conclusion they lead to this behaviour"

Conclusion - "anyone who holds the principles we started with (and follows my reasoning) would be advised to behave thus"


So far you've provided us with a few ideas for the premise and then just got hysterical when we didn't agree with them.