Because he doesn't agree? Is that what you're about? 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. But you must have misspoke.A premise is a fact about the state of affairs that exists which you hope is agreed upon by your interlocutor. If its not agreed on, there's no point in presenting your reasoning, because it reasons from a state of affairs your opponent does not agree exists. — Isaac
You appear to object on the basis of how they're made. I have said nothing about the how, but instead about the what. And you appear to have some specific notion of "social contract"; I do not. A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason. That is what I mean by social contract, that the law(s) are an expression of. Further, that social contract is implied in the the being of a law, in that opposing the law can upset the order of the community, and breaking it, attack.Law is an expression of a social contract.
— tim wood
I do not agree with this premise. — Isaac
Yes, you self-legislate on this. To be sure there are areas of personal morality - or I think there are - where self-legislation is the right way. But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on. As evidence we need merely consider what the community reserves for itself as the right to do to you if you break the law. And further, 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.Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done.
— tim wood
As discussed at great length, I do not agree with this premise either. — 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. Recent history is that S. Africa saw that the laws were in effect a shooting of their own foot, so they changed their laws.Law is about the benefit and protection of the community.
— tim wood
As with your first assertion about law, you have not provided the mechanism by which this is ensured, and there are countless examples to the contrary. Tell me, in what way do you see the various laws of Apartheid in South Africa to have been about the "benefit and protection of the community"? — Isaac
We must take care, here. Who makes the judgment that the community accepts immoral behaviour? And that notwithstanding, the immorality of attacking the community remains. It does not evaporate or disappear. And not addressed is the general form of the question that can be asked in particular: who and by what right does such a person judge and act?Harming the community must be seen in and by the community as immoral - must be immoral.
— tim wood
Again we disagree for the reasons given to your assertion that morality is "the community's view of what should/ should not be done". It is possible for the community to hold immoral behaviour to be accepted practice and it may, in theory, be necessary to harm that community for a greater good. — Isaac
Logical consequence: what Nelson Mandela did, for example, was immoral.
Your conclusion: breaking the law is immoral.
Fact: Nelson Mandela broke the law.
Conclusion: Therefore, Nelson Mandela's breaking of the law was immoral.
You do not seem to accept this logical consequence, given your earlier outburst. If so, you are inconsistent, which means that your stance is self-refuting.
You can't have your cake and eat it.
And calling someone disgusting for bringing up counterexamples to your bad logic, as you did earlier, is not a valid or reputable response. — S
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
The community did not enact and enforce those laws. Nor did they do so in America during the era of slavery. — 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
Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. — 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
One key component of your argument is that one "benefits" from being in a community. — Isaac
As S has already pointed out to earlier. You made the issue one of the absolute immorality of breaking the law. You can't no swing it back to the specifics because the argument isn't going your way. — Isaac
So, what I'm struggling to see in your argument is a universally applied rule for who constitutes a member of one's community which is not itself relativist. Some rule which derives from universal facts about the world, not relative feeling. — Isaac
Community is the coming together of people for mutual benefit and protection. Community understood as a state the better for it than for the lack of it.
— tim wood
Agreed. We can continue to reason from this premise because we both agree with it.
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
Again, we agree here, so reasoning developed from this premise would be worth pursuing. — Isaac
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
Do you see any obligation to obey the law as law? Not to say that you cannot break a law on moral grounds, but that at the outset the law must be respected as law, before it is broken as immoral law. My view is that law imposes a duty. Whether it's observed is decided after.The morality of the act also maintains its integrity. This is because the two things are separate, they are not the same thing. — DingoJones
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.