3. He is objectively neither right, nor wrong, because the question of who is and is not a member of your community is a subjective one.
You've already dismissed 3. If you accept 2 we have to also accept that vast quantities of people both act immoraly, and lie about their moral feelings when asked (which undermines the evidence base for universality). But that leaves us only with 1, which is the racist option.
Do you see the problem? — Isaac
To my way of thinking the entire civil rights movement is an exercise in higher morality. As such it - the exercise - comes at a cost. In a business/accounting metaphor, the reward, the revenue, is greater than the expense - it had better be! - and adjudged worth it; but the simple plain facts of the matter do not make the expense disappear - and they had better not! Among those are the moral and other expenses - costs - of breaking the law. — tim wood
662
prior to that is the presupposition of respect for the law as law. Not as law-in-principle or as abstract, but as law. — Isaac
Again, you're not making the distinction that I am making. As such, every argument that you make misses the mark. — tim wood
As a member of a community, you are always under law, even while sleeping. As such, I hold, you are under a moral obligation with respect to the law - which is to say that you acknowledge the other in the law and his or her right to your compliance as supporting and maintaining your community. — tim wood
Disobedience (as observed before) is revolution writ small - or large! — tim wood
does your moral obligation to obey the law absolutely stop you from breaking the law? It does not. Clearly it does not. What follows then if you break it? A likely-hood of real harm to you and real harm to your community. And who authorized that other than you? — tim wood
It seems to me that "law as law" is law in general or law in principle, as opposed to 'law as a law' which is law in particular. — Janus
I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed. — ZhouBoTong
Fuck off, mere-S. This adds nothing to the discussion. You're wasting my time and everyone else's time. — tim wood
But don't you suppose that topic, having nothing to do with this topic, deserves its own thread? — tim wood
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
So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin: — Shamshir
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.