EPTFor a statement like "laws provide the foundation of our society," supposedly it means laws are good because such and such is seen as necessary for society or something like that. It is a terribly defined statement. Now we are expected to not care about whether they are right or wrong, just because of some vague reference to an imaginary foundation of an imaginary object. (see, i can use terribly defined things like "imaginary" to create effects too!)
Philosophic question - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
For a statement like "laws provide the foundation of our society," supposedly it means laws are good because such and such is seen as necessary for society or something like that. It is a terribly defined statement. Now we are expected to not care about whether they are right or wrong, just because of some vague reference to an imaginary foundation of an imaginary object. (see, i can use terribly defined things like "imaginary" to create effects too!) | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 15 2006 13:42 Mortality wrote: Laws provide the foundation of our society. Whether they are right or wrong, that does not change. This is what your professor is driving for -- to recognize this and to weigh the value of the legitimacy of the law against the greater good of society (breaking the law degrades society regardless of the laws legitimacy or illegitimacy). Some may interpret it as your moral responsibility to perform the lesser of two evils if given only those two evils as a choice, but my counter-argument focuses on two points: 1.) you can always choose to fight the law through legitimate channels and 2.) when given two choices that are both evil, choosing either outcome is settling for evil, even if it is of a lesser form. the ability to question laws is equally important. also, going against an evil law is not necessarily evil in itself. which is where i think your point breaks down. everything rests on the assumption that law is necessarily correct until it is legally overturned. that just isnt right. | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11603 Posts
On November 15 2006 12:57 Mortality wrote: It's not morally correct to break a law, no matter how unjust that law may be. That does not mean that there are no cases where laws should be broken -- that means that the best case scenario is that breaking the law is a lesser evil than obeying it. Why is it morally wrong to break a law? Because when you do, you hurt someone in some way. The law that you are breaking may hurt people worse than you are doing by breaking it, but you are still causing hurt. I'll give an example of this: the underground railroad. There is no question that slavery was wrong, but those who practively sought to end slavery by breaking the law and helping slaves escape wronged those also wronged the slave owner and caused the degredation of society, further polarizing political views, which did nothing other than fuel the Civil War. So, when jews ran away from prison camps, BREAKING the law of Germany at the time, it was morally bad? If the jews ran away or did not, it still would of had the United States, England, France, Poland, Russia, China, and a few others declare war upon Germany. It was morally correct for people to break the law by running away and/or helping others do so. Such an example of this could be "The Diary of Ann Frank". | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 15 2006 13:39 IdrA wrote: not true, victimless crimes would not be morally wrong by your standards because they do not necessarily hurt anyone. also the fact that you define morality solely by if the legality of an action is kind of... stupid. its wrong to free a slave, but ok the next day because the Emancipation Proclamation was issued? and if you take away the assumption that law is always right than the rest of it kind of falls apart. if a person is following the law but doing wrong, then you are morally obligated to go against the law and stop them, to fix the wrong. it is not necessarily wrong for you to do that simply because it is against the law. it becomes a question of the morality of the law itself. there is also some room for debate even if the illegal action clearly hurts someone who is not doing something morally wrong. the example of a poor man stealing to feed his family is a good one. a poor guy steals 100$ worth of food from a millionaire, it is illegal and the millionaire did nothing wrong, but will barely notice the loss of a fraction of his money. on the other hand the poor guys family will now eat and survive for a month. wouldn't it be morally wrong to allow the family to die when he had the means to provide for them, especially when those means are only a minor inconvenience for someone else. The post following yours answers some of these points. Also, there is never such a thing as a victimless crime. If you think there is, you haven't thought about an issue from all possible positions. Crime always degrades society in some way or another. Yes, some crimes may degrade it at only an infinitestimal level. When I, a 20 year old, drink a single glass of beer I have broken the law, I have smashed a hammer into the foundation that supports society. Yet when I do it, society feels only the weight of a pin drop. Should I some day kill somebody not out of self-defense, society would feel a tank ramming into its support. The difference is almost immeasurable, yet that does not change that I have done wrong. What it does change is that I, a morally imperfect citizen, will choose to drink a beer if I see it as being in my interest to do so (for instance after a midterm I take later today I may consider taking a drink because a glass of beer causes me to sleep more soundly and I view that gain in sleep as benefiting me at an individual level a million times more than I have damaged society), yet I have no cause to kill someone and therefore will not. Obviously some crimes are more damaging than others. If you were to give a mathematical real number value to the societal damage of each crime, then it would suffice to say that this space we have defined is not complete because there is a sequence of crimes with value convergent to zero, yet zero is not a part of the space. Me drinking a single beer is an example of a crime that has value that is arbitrarily small, yet it is still greater than zero. Why is it greater than zero? I have dodged that point but to use this as an example I must expalin it. It's greater than zero because at a subconscious level it builds a disrespect for the law, making me more tolerant to breaking laws in the future. Additionally, if others are aware of my actions, it can motivate them to develop similar feelings. The respect I lose for the law when I drink one drink is arbitrarily small, yet it is non-zero. Thus, since I am a part of society, I have degraded it a tiny bit. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
fighting unjust laws does not foster disrespect for the law in general as long as the distinction can be made between just and unjust laws. you can fight unjust while still following just. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
From a deontological point of view the tests for whether civil insubordination is moral are similar. Define what duty the individual has and test against the insubordination. An (ficticious) example: a catholic priest in Nazi Germany swears allegience to his order and their rules, holding the ten commandments sacred. He is (by undefined means) drafted into the Nazi army and stationed at a Nazi death camp and given the assignment of turning on the gas in one of the "shower" rooms to kill the people within. As a dictator, Hitler's word is law. And being in the military, the laws regarding the chain of command make it illegal for the priest to refuse the duty assigned him. However, since foremost in his mind he is a priest and dedicated to rules against murder, he can justify his moral choice of insubordination deontologically. A more realistically immediate example: a spy in the CIA has a duty to his country of origin, though s/he will work overseas, often breaking laws in the name of duty (potentially for moral reasons as well). Civil insubordination can be moral. Theft, murder and even victimless crimes such as possessing controlled substances are rarely morally motivated. But civil disobedience such as Rosa Parks' actions on public transport, or the organizers of the underground railroad during the civil war, or just about any protest tactic can be said to be morally motivated and justifiable independent of the question of their legality. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 15 2006 13:51 CaucasianAsian wrote: So, when jews ran away from prison camps, BREAKING the law of Germany at the time, it was morally bad? If the jews ran away or did not, it still would of had the United States, England, France, Poland, Russia, China, and a few others declare war upon Germany. It was morally correct for people to break the law by running away and/or helping others do so. Such an example of this could be "The Diary of Ann Frank". I wrote a long post and now deleted it. There is no black and white in this world and not even shades of gray. You can only see things clearly in all two million colors. There is always an internal struggle between what's best for the individual and what's best for society. It would be best for me if I had 100 hot women to sleep with and 100 billion dollars to spend, yet it would be bad for society if I stole from others to get that. Some cases, as with slaves and as with those in Auschwitz, the responsbility of one to himself can easily be argued to outweigh the responsibility to the society they are a part of. Further, you must distinguish between different levels of society. A nation is a society, but so is a state, county or jurisdiction. Those in Auschwitz developed a society of their own within Auschwitz and since the larger society they were in had forsaken them, their responsibility to that smaller society (one in which there were no official rules) could easily be argued to outweigh the responsibility of the larger society. So if white is pure good and black is pure evil and if red denotes the responsibility to the smaller society and blue denotes the responsibility to Germany, morally speaking, breaking out of Auschwitz would be a darker blue combined with a hot pink. The hot pink color would probably be substantially more intense (i.e. there would be more of it). Does that make sense? You are not limited to the societal view of a nations alone. | ||
|
HeadBangaa
United States6512 Posts
Now who is gonna tell me that it's wrong to break the law in this situation? Can we say that only just laws should be followed? Ooohh, slippery indeed. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 15 2006 14:04 IdrA wrote: in the case of a morally wrong law you are not damaging society by going against it, you are strengthening it by fighting a wrong. the wrong law in itself is damaging society, you're removing a thorn from society's side. so once again the question is the morality of the law. fighting unjust laws does not foster disrespect for the law in general as long as the distinction can be made between just and unjust laws. you can fight unjust while still following just. You breed discontempt for the law and for the government. That beyond doubt deteriorates society. Fighting the law always breeds discontempt for it. But you can choose to fight a law through legal channels, which does not damage society since doing so is making the statement "I do not like this law, but I have respect for our legal system and I will work to build and strengthen it." One drink may be "harmless," but what happened in the early 1900's when alcohol was illegal? People bootlegged it, and those people spread chaos. Even though the bootlegging itself was not all that damaging, bootlegging begat other more serious crimes because it spread discontempt for the legal system in general. If history has told us anything it is that this is a universal truth. You cannot fight a law through illegal means and retain respect for the legal system as a whole. Just ask Al Capone. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 15 2006 14:23 HeadBangaa wrote: Let's say you are a citizen of Germany circa 1942. Your wife is jewish. Some SS come to your door asking if any jews are in there. It's against the law to lie to the SS, but you know she will be dragged to a concentration camp if you answer 'yes' (ok, may not be incredibly historically accurate, but you get my hypothetical situation, ok?). Now who is gonna tell me that it's wrong to break the law in this situation? Edit: you can say that in this case your obligation to the society that is your family is stronger and I would agree with you. But that doesn't make your actions 100% morally pure. The color may not be dark, but it is not white either. Can we say that only just laws should be followed? Ooohh, slippery indeed. What you did is morally wrong in the context of the society of Germany as a whole, but morally right in the context of the society that is your family. Does that make sense? | ||
|
testpat
United States565 Posts
On November 15 2006 14:17 Tadzio00 wrote: It can be morally correct to break the law from both a deontologic view and a teleologic view. From a teleological point of view it's relatively easy to justify morally. If a law subverts a natural prediliction, it is morally correct to break that law. Defining what is natural is key to determining what is moral from this view. There should be no shortage of real and imaginary examples to support this. From a deontological point of view the tests for whether civil insubordination is moral are similar. Define what duty the individual has and test against the insubordination. An (ficticious) example: a catholic priest in Nazi Germany swears allegience to his order and their rules, holding the ten commandments sacred. He is (by undefined means) drafted into the Nazi army and stationed at a Nazi death camp and given the assignment of turning on the gas in one of the "shower" rooms to kill the people within. As a dictator, Hitler's word is law. And being in the military, the laws regarding the chain of command make it illegal for the priest to refuse the duty assigned him. However, since foremost in his mind he is a priest and dedicated to rules against murder, he can justify his moral choice of insubordination deontologically. A more realistically immediate example: a spy in the CIA has a duty to his country of origin, though s/he will work overseas, often breaking laws in the name of duty (potentially for moral reasons as well). Civil insubordination can be moral. Theft, murder and even victimless crimes such as possessing controlled substances are rarely morally motivated. But civil disobedience such as Rosa Parks' actions on public transport, or the organizers of the underground railroad during the civil war, or just about any protest tactic can be said to be morally motivated and justifiable independent of the question of their legality. Solidly stated, however the word "justifiable" should only be applied in relation to their morality standards,. Abortion clinic bombers, the crusades, and KKK actions come to mind. | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
To go to extremes, Hitler probably didn't care about the millions of Jews that died, but the alliance did. It was lawfully acceptable to kill Jews in Germany, it was not so pretty much anywhere else in the world. So there's also the fact that LAW itself can be inconsistent with other laws. I think it can be morally right to break the law. What the law says shouldn't affect your morals, YOU are in control of your morals. There are obvious consequences to breaking the law, but that's not related to this question. If your morals tell you that it is acceptable to take that piece of bread, then it's MORALLY right to take that piece of bread. But lawfully, it is considered stealing, and is unacceptable. So I've just described a situation that is morally right but lawfully wrong. You'd probably have to point out that morals and laws do not hold the same ideals. p.s. don't go around assuming/dictating what everyone's morals should be.. bad mistake | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
| ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
Teleological view states that everything (more of people than anything else) has a purpose. Consider the following scenario: the law does not fully understand an individual's purpose, and the individual does. The individual goes to fulfill his purpose, but by doing so, he/she breaks the law. So the individual breaks the law to fulfill his purpose (morally right thing to do). | ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 15 2006 14:42 Tadzio00 wrote: Laws aren't moral constructs. They're societal constructs. Some laws (laws against murder, theft, etc) can be called moral, but their morality is incidental to the goal of law; which is to maintain societal norms in an (mostly) arbitrary fashion. Breaking a law IS without a doubt damaging to the law's abstract society... but breaking the law is not morally unjustifiable as a result. Society is not moral authority. Society is an abstract collectivization of individuals bound together by some-- usually geographic-- shared features. If society acts immorally towards a demographic of its population via it's laws, it is morally justifiable to ignore those laws. In fact it may be a moral imperitive depending on the severity of the law's immorality. Well said. ^^; That's exactly what I was thinking. | ||
|
Tadzio
3340 Posts
On November 15 2006 14:27 Mortality wrote: What you did is morally wrong in the context of the society of Germany as a whole, but morally right in the context of the society that is your family. Does that make sense? It doesn't make sense. You're diluting the meaning of the word society to such a great extreme that it violates reason. You're saying society can be used to define a family, which it can't; and you're also saying that society is synonymous with moral authority, which it isn't. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 15 2006 14:26 Mortality wrote: You breed discontempt for the law and for the government. That beyond doubt deteriorates society. Fighting the law always breeds discontempt for it. But you can choose to fight a law through legal channels, which does not damage society since doing so is making the statement "I do not like this law, but I have respect for our legal system and I will work to build and strengthen it." One drink may be "harmless," but what happened in the early 1900's when alcohol was illegal? People bootlegged it, and those people spread chaos. Even though the bootlegging itself was not all that damaging, bootlegging begat other more serious crimes because it spread discontempt for the legal system in general. If history has told us anything it is that this is a universal truth. You cannot fight a law through illegal means and retain respect for the legal system as a whole. Just ask Al Capone. did you not read what i said? people have the ability to differentiate between just and unjust laws, and those who dont generally end up in prison. fighting unjust laws does not necessarily mean you disregard all laws. and challenging law that isnt just is not damaging society, it is strengthening it. the idea that people can recognize and fight laws, among other things, that are unjust is central to our belief system. going through bureaucratic channels may be the 'proper' way, however it is often ineffectual, or at best very slow. directly fighting the law is a perfectly valid approach, as, as said before, violating an immoral law is not immoral in itself. also i dont see how referencing a gangster is very good proof of your point. he wasnt trying to overturn unjust laws, which is what we are talking about, he was simply ignoring laws that stood in the way of his personal gain. which is the same reason the drinking age example you used is irrelevant, people dont violate the law to make a statement that the drinking age should be lowered, they do it because they want to drink. | ||
|
Deleted User 3420
24492 Posts
| ||
|
infinity21
Canada6683 Posts
On November 15 2006 15:47 travis wrote: my opinion is that it is sometimes morally correct to break the law. haha man you're so awesome! Everyone's posting an essay and you write this simple and clear 1 liner.  btw I agree with you completely. | ||
|
iNcontroL
USA29055 Posts
Also any kind of totalitarian regime would give ample evidence that this is of course a simple question. Perhaps it becomes more challenging when you regard the framework you asked for, I did not care enough to frame it as such  | ||
| ||
