Much of it certainly does. It tends not to cover a great deal of things that may be considered immoral - making fun of someone in most instances - but what is in the law has perhaps for the most part to do with morality. Exceptions might be things that are just practices we need to agree on, like perhaps around contracts, where different models might be equally moral, but we need to have one so we are all on the same page.It seems to me a reasonable supposition that law comes out of morality. — tim wood
Right, and it's good you bring this up. I think that is an underlying issue here, so it's good to have on the table.The question then is not whether law is immoral but whether obedience to law itself is a matter of morality. Or a clearer form of the question: is there a presumption about law or any law that it should be obeyed? — tim wood
I don't think this makes sense. Unless you mean we are presupposing that the law deals with behavior and was constructed to encourage moral behavior. But just because it is a law and intended to deal with a moral issue does not for me lead to the conclusion that it is moral.To ask if a law is moral or can be disregarded is to presuppose that it is moral and should be complied with. — tim wood
That's the starting point for any member of a community. — tim wood
I get that, and it's good to have that clearly stated. I don't think I have ever met someone who did not break at least minor laws - jay walking, say - when they felt they could evaluate the potential consquences, etc. But it is possible that some people, you being one, never do this, or consider it per se immoral when you do.And there apparently are a lot of people who feel they're entitled (presumably as members of the community) to legislate their own laws and their own compliance with laws. I claim and argue that this is immoral. — tim wood
Waht are the consequences of following the law? In some situations this might include reporting people to powers that would commit immoral acts against them.The argument is that it is ok to break the law under "certain circumstances". Questions: what circumstance and by what or whose standard? And with what consequence? — tim wood
Well, my first argument is that we need to get specific. Does your sense that it is immoral per se to break the law hold regardless of the laws/society involved? If it does we can discuss examples like the ones I mentioned. If it does not hold regardless of the laws and society, then your questions about consequences and grounds and the rest is also one you would need to answer.If you have an argument, here, thought through, I'll be glad to read it and reply. But if you look back through this thread, you will see that much of it is a waste of time. if we're to do more here, then let's do better! But take care to observe what I have not argued. — tim wood
Why? In what way? How?It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies. — Mtherapist67
To ask if a law is moral or can be disregarded is to presuppose that it is moral and should be complied with.
— tim wood
I don't think this makes sense. — Coben
I have in mind a (the) concept of law in general. I assume most people would agree that at first cut, one should consider that as a law, the particular law in question should be obeyed.is there a presumption about law or any law that it should be obeyed?
— tim wood
I think that is an underlying issue here, so it's good to have on the table. — Coben
No? What happened to the concept and understanding of law in general? Isn't this expression of the thing too facile? It comes down to what you mean by "think."I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it. — Coben
I consider this an ignorant whine, not even arising to the level of speech, and at the least confusing license with freedom - and likely having no understanding of what freedom is. In practice, I have never met an addict who felt in the least bit free about taking illegal drugs, they always argue need and compulsion!It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies. — Mtherapist67
I didn't get this.Did you ever spend time trying to figure out if a cherry popsicle could win the Indianapolis 739? No, because it's absurd and there is no such race. The point here is merely to suppose that if a question is asked (that is not a nonsense question; i.e., a serious question), it presupposes certain answers to that question - not to be confused with answering it. Without this rule, we are obliged to consider whether our question is about, or also about, or answered by, the number of spots on a leopard or the weight of a hippopotamus. — tim wood
Nice, clear. This will help clarify where we agree and disagree.Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. In my view that does not make the lesser morality "evaporate." It's still there, and, as a practical matter and depending on enforcement, can still bite! — tim wood
This is certainly one of the arguments.Your argument, as I read it, is that there can be reasons for breaking a law superior to those for obeying it. — tim wood
re: breaking the law on moral grounds. yes, we may disagree. But once we agree, then it opens a door where we must think as individuals. Below you say...We perhaps disagree on the both the extent of the justifiable grounds for such an action, and the status of the action itself. — tim wood
I could follow laws and pretend I am not thinking, but I am making a decision to follow them. You are using thinking to judge people for breaking the law. We use thinking to come with laws. It is a huge responsibility we each have, whether we follow or not and when and why and how much we thought and how we decided to trust ourselves to go against what some other thought or to go along with them.I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it.
— Coben
No? What happened to the concept and understanding of law in general? Isn't this expression of the thing too facile? It comes down to what you mean by "think." — tim wood
I don't think thinking that one law is immoral means you think the whole system is wrong. I don't think an abolitionist need think that laws against rape are wrong or even that a government can make the laws, in general, is wrong.And as well that if you consider it moral to break a law, arguably you must think the law itself is immoral. That is, yours is an attack not just on some particular thing at a particular time in a particular way, but on the system as a whole. — tim wood
That is certainly what the state expects and many of the citizens in it. Though, again, I notice pretty much everyone then breaking at least small laws when they think they have the skills needs or whatever to make the judgement it is OK in this or that instance or in general. They offer wine to their minor kids and give a talk they think makes for a more healthy whole than not doing that. They jaywalk. They double park because it's the only way to get their kid to....And yes, for most they are minor offences, but the door is open and I would guess that most citizens do this. So I have a state expecting me to follow all laws and consider them moral and a sort of base contract. While at the same not legislators, enforcement (police) and my fellow citizens also clearly make at least small exceptions - iow they think they are small, they think they can make the decision. And most of them would agree that they would break laws in other countries if they were born there if following the law was immoral. And in past times they would break laws they considered immoral.In sum, morality arises out of community, and law out of morality. Off-hand I can think of no law so arbitrary it cannot be traced back to these roots. As such, members of any community start with/under obligation. — tim wood
Could you expand on that?There are those who argue that law impairs their "freedom," or "freedom of choice." But it's likely that such arguments are based on flawed understandings - if even there are any understandings - of the terms of their own arguments. — tim wood
It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
I consider this an ignorant whine, not even arising to the level of speech, and at the least confusing license with freedom - and likely having no understanding of what freedom is. In practice, I have never met an addict who felt in the least bit free about taking illegal drugs, they always argue need and compulsion! — tim wood
Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. I — tim wood
It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
Why? In what way? How? — tim wood
And: 2)But take care to observe what I have not argued. — tim wood
I have in mind a (the) concept of law in general. I assume most people would agree that at first cut, one should consider that as a law, the particular law in question should be obeyed. — tim wood
If I'm following you, then there may be reasons for breaking a particular law if a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it, but in this particular case - illegal drugs - there is no such higher or greater morality that requires you to break it (as would be, say, in the situation of not telling the Nazis that you have hidden a Jewish escapee fro a concentration camp.)
Am I representing you correctly - or am I at least close? — EricH
Closer than most on TPF. As to a rule that might require a person to break a law, that's a tough one, nor can I think of one, outside of a situation of war or an equivalent. — tim wood
It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
Why? In what way? How? — tim wood
ethics are society's overall "right and wrong" guidelines, morality being each individual's adopted choice of "right and wrong" — THX1138
I don't have an answer to this - I'm still trying to figure it out. That's why I'm asking questions. :smile:But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral? — tim wood
What are the criteria for deciding which laws fall into a separate topic? Many people would consider taking certain drugs under certain situations to fall into the same category as exceeding the speed limit.Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic. — tim wood
It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies. — tim wood
I do not believe in drugs for non-recreational purposes. :smile: — Arne
Probably because that's more or less a foundational moral disposition for him: it's immoral to legally control what people can choose to do with their own bodies. — Terrapin Station
approve or disapprove of, categorically as stated, where they're not based on other stances. All morality starts from that. — Terrapin Station
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.