I never said it wasn't immoral. With respect to the law as law, he was and it was. — tim wood
And I am sure he would agree. And further I imagine he... — tim wood
But what Schindler did wasn't immoral.
— S
And from that you want to be able to self-legislate in opposition to your community's laws that you can and presumably will take illegal drugs and there is nothing immoral about that. Yes? — tim wood
How about the right or the correct? That four is the sum of two twos, is that just a matter of agreement? True when folks agree and not when they don't? We're starting out here with nonsense, and no foundation whatsoever for a reasoned argument. — tim wood
You appear to object on the basis of how they're made. I have said nothing about the how, but instead about the what. — tim wood
A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason. — tim wood
But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on. — tim wood
mere disagreement should be a signal for approaching argument. On this I've missed your argument. At the moment it seems to me a claim or position without support. — tim wood
Clearly the community thought it was for the benefit and protection of the community, or they would not have enacted and enforced those laws. — tim wood
Who makes the judgment that the community accepts immoral behaviour? — tim wood
A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason.
— tim wood
On the basis of what historical evidence are you basing this theory. You seem to frequently repeat this notion that laws are created by the community for their own good. You have not provided any evidence, nor any mechanism by which this happens. — Isaac
But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on.
— tim wood
So what? If the community are not behaving morally, why should I give a toss what they intended their laws to cover? — Isaac
Clearly the community thought it was for the benefit and protection of the community, or they would not have enacted and enforced those laws.
— tim wood
The community did not enact and enforce those laws. Nor did they do so in America during the era of slavery. Your willingness to let your right-wing drum-beating, write whole sectors of the community out of history is borderline racist. A minority of white landowners enacted and enforced those laws. They are not, nor ever were the community. The community included blacks, women, children and other immigrants all of whom have been denied any say whatsoever in the laws governing them at various points in history. — Isaac
"Well, Nelson Mandela broke the law and it was moral for him to do so, and certain Americans broke slave laws and it was moral for them to do so; so, therefore, it is not immoral for me to break the law by taking illegal drugs." Is that yours in a nutshell? — tim wood
As Tim considers it beneath him, and you seem to understand his point... — ZhouBoTong
Can you explain to me why Schindler breaking the law to help people is immoral? — ZhouBoTong
So you agree there can be situations where EVERY option open to the individual is immoral? What is the point of morals if they do not inform us as to how we should act? — ZhouBoTong
Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. It is no more ALWAYS MORAL than it is ALWAYS IMMORAL - this isn't that weird of an idea is it? — ZhouBoTong
As discussed at great length, I do not agree with this premise either. The arguments around this are long, but to simplify, communities could (and do) exist whose view of what should/should not be done can include things like murder of witches, owning of slaves, raping of war widows... All of which are clearly immoral. — Isaac
I had to look at this. Our problem here, that I'll own, is a lack of clarity and accuracy in my expression in keeping separate the separate ideas of law-in-principle and law. Offhand I do not think there is any such thing as a law-in-principle - I cannot think of any example. What I do affirm is that a law, to be a law, has to be a law, meaning it has to be enacted as a law and enforceable as such. That is, it's either a law or it is not a law, no middle. None of this to be confused with the Law, capital L. — tim wood
The underlying/underpinning understanding is that breaking any law is an attack on the community. — tim wood
You are presupposing a definition of "community" at odds with our agreed definition above. I never said the communities were nice communities or inclusive communities or that the laws were nice laws. I've said nothing about virtue. — tim wood
In the community, one is either a member of the community or at least subject to it. In any case, as present in it, one benefits from it. In a simple sense, then, though not a legal sense, to be in is to be a member. — tim wood
Law is about the benefit and protection of the community. — tim wood
And for all this, you're equating the morality of breaking the law by taking illegal drugs with the morality of breaking slave laws and challenging apartheid? — tim wood
No community would ever approve of murder, slavery or rape being done to any member of what they considered to be "their community". And that was the point about the universality of agreement about "life and death" moral acts that I was making in the earlier discussion. — Janus
So how - given our history, do you go about defining {member of your community} in a non-relativistic way? — Isaac
I don't deny that there is no hard and fast definition of community (or anything else!). But I would suggest that most people know just who would count as a member of their community, and that for many if not most within a given community there would be agreement — Janus
I would suggest that most people know just who would count as a member of their community, and that for many if not most within a given community there would be agreement. — Janus
And counter question: let's suppose you-all are right: that breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood
In order for the imperative "do not murder/torture/rape a member of your community" to be universal, the rules for {member of your community} must also be universal, otherwise the imperitive becomes " do not murder whomever you subjectively feel it is not OK to murder", which is relativist, not universal. — Isaac
breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.