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
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
But morality is in almost all philosophy. Try looking for it. — tim wood
It is the specific claim that "it is always immoral to break the law" that we need to find. — ZhouBoTong
It is the specific claim that "it is always immoral to break the law" that we need to find. — ZhouBoTong
'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
The rules imposed by law are those which society found necessary to preserve peace. — ernestm
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
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
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
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
if there is no system of authority, then there is no law at all, because no one can enforce it. — ernestm
So what. — ernestm
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
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
It is always UNETHICAL to break the law. Personal beliefs may render the ethics immoral to the individual. — ernestm
What you need to do is show that given a binary decision, both choices ARE immoral. That doesn't make any sense to me. — ZhouBoTong
Except that law as law is never in principle, it is always in fact. What is law? Law is an expression of the social contract. Without it, we're in a state of nature. From Hobbes:
"Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of Warre, where every man is Enemy to every man; the same is consequent to the time, wherein men live without other security, than what their own strength, and their own invention shall furnish them withall. In such condition, there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."
Is every social contract a good one? Certainly not. But for most, any is better than none.
What astounds me here is that no one posting here seems able to comprehend the thing understood in general terms as opposed to its being understood in its particularity, and the difference between the two.
Most of you argue that it is not immoral to break a bad law. How do you know? How do you decide? If you will attend to your own thinking, I'm pretty sure that before you decide to break a law you must first recognize that it is a law. That is, in its general form, it's something you implicitly acknowledge should be obeyed. The crux of my argument is that "should" never goes away. It's always in force. You may decide there is good reason to break it (note: "reason"), but that in no way impairs the force of the original "should."
And that's the counterargument that needs to be made. If a law can be nullified by any individual, then it's not really a law, is it! But if you cannot nullify a law, then it remains as a law, always with its categorical imperative to be obeyed. Breaking laws is, then - or should be - serious business; it's revolution writ small. Breaking the law is an attack on the social contract, especially in societies where lawful remedies are available. Should some social contracts be attacked? History answers yes. But what is the merit, the morality, of breaking the law by "doing" illegal drugs? For most, there is none. And that use by the most, in terms of the social contract, is deeply immoral. Or would be, except that modern science calls it a disease and a sickness - which I buy.
Should illegal drugs be legalized or alternatively decriminalized? Dunno. Should they be controlled in some way, at least? I think so. Most of the societies on the planet have judged that certain broad categories of drugs and drug usage are harmful; are they all wrong? — tim wood
I'm sure he blushes at being reminded he wrote this. First, it is illegal in the eyes of the state. That's why it's called a law. Second, it is not immoral only in the eyes of the state. Third, were it immoral only in the eyes of the state, then why would the state enact a law against it? What even does it mean to say, "only in the eyes of the state"?It is only immoral in the eyes of the state. — Merkwurdichliebe
I think Tim's argument is something like that in principle it is always morally wrong to break the law. But that principle is based on the idea that laws are in principle moral. — Janus
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
Do you believe a citizen has a moral obligation to obey the law. Yes or no. — tim wood
On this I would say you do not know what law is or its purposes or what the duties of a citizen are. A law may have a history, but is is always a law now, if it be a law. 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. To be sure, all this may never come up, but if you break laws, then it's right there in everyone's face.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. — Isaac
*sigh* This is just a variant of relativism. Let's start with, " Morality is not one thing to all people." Categorical P is not Q. "Morality" is a word without meaning, then? And if Law comes out of morality, then Law is meaningless? The result is all that you have is the man with the gun telling you what to do or not do, or else. But what do you say to people who argue that these concepts are meaningful, and lay out that meaning? Apparently you disregard it.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.
Again the error. 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.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.
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
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
"Morality" is a word without meaning, then? — tim wood
And if Law comes out of morality, then Law is meaningless? — tim wood
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
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
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
Challenge: you define morality/immorality. Maybe in that I'll see the error of my ways. — tim wood
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? — Isaac
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. — Isaac
"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? — Isaac
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? — Isaac
But what do you say to the fellow who differs with you? Clearly there's no space for reason; you've ruled that out.For me, morality is the collection of behaviours I feel are acceptable to me, — Isaac
Most of you argue that it is not immoral to break a bad law. How do you know? How do you decide? If you will attend to your own thinking, I'm pretty sure that before you decide to break a law you must first recognize that it is a law. That is, in its general form, it's something you implicitly acknowledge should be obeyed. The crux of my argument is that "should" never goes away. It's always in force. You may decide there is good reason to break it (note: "reason"), but that in no way impairs the force of the original "should."
And that's the counterargument that needs to be made. If a law can be nullified by any individual, then it's not really a law, is it! But if you cannot nullify a law, then it remains as a law, always with its categorical imperative to be obeyed. Breaking laws is, then - or should be - serious business; it's revolution writ small.Breaking the law is an attack on the social contract, especially in societies where lawful remedies are available. Should some social contracts be attacked? History answers yes. But what is the merit, the morality, of breaking the law by "doing" illegal drugs? For most, there is none. And that use by the most, in terms of the social contract, is deeply immoral. Or would be, except that modern science calls it a disease and a sickness - which I buy. — tim wood
Characteristic ad hominem. How does your comment relate to the argument? — tim wood
And my argument has been made repeatedly above. — tim wood
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
Your position: no law is moral; none are based on any morality. — tim wood
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
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
if you'll go back to my post, you will observe a number of arguments you ignored, mostly in this: — tim wood
How do you know? How do you decide? — tim wood
it's something you implicitly acknowledge should be obeyed. — tim wood
that "should" never goes away. It's always in force. — tim wood
If a law can be nullified by any individual, then it's not really a law, is it! — tim wood
Breaking the law is an attack on the social contract, especially in societies where lawful remedies are available. — tim wood
what is the merit, the morality, of breaking the law by "doing" illegal drugs? — 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.