Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 104
Breaking the law: A morality issue?Page 4 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
I have to agree that cannabis should be legalized, regulated, and taxed. However, I also think the "dangerous" drugs should be. A whiff of frustrated libertarian in the liberal - and a fan of Darwin.

But here:

"If I toke it up, it doesn't really benefit anyone besides me…
That depends on whether you, and others do en masse, as an act of civil disobedience. Had Rosa Parks taken that seat just to take that seat, it would have been only for her benefit as well. Civil Disobedience is an act of intent/consequence, …not just consequence, …not just intent. "

Again, I'm not quite understanding. Rosa Parks' courageous act kicked off a movement that was necessary to make it illegal to hang black men for looking at white women. It was life and death. Yes, the drug laws are wrong, and they cause more harm than they prevent, but she sat in the front of the bus so that an entire race would be considered human. A smoke in...would be for the purpose of legalizing weed. You indicated that you can't separate intent/consequence. The intent of the civilly-disobedient pot smoker? To be able to smoke more pot?

That being said, you made a decent point about the bright side of cannabis. When I had a lot less to lose, I went to a Dead show and...smoked. I had been working on this project for calculus, but couldn't quite visualize where I needed to go. One tiny thing was missing. It was literally like a flash. The mind-loosening it provided let me see the solution that was there all along. However. for every person who uses this to expand his or her mind in a useful way, there are dozens of whiny morons living in their mothers' basements playing PSP and using words far larger than they can spell or define - Convinced that they are privy to the mysteries of the universe due to their perpetual intoxication.

I absolutely, completely, am NOT referring to anyone on this thread. The arguments and logic here have been reasonably sound from what I can see. It's just that too many Dead shows and Rainbow Gatherings can leave an impression...

Peace
 x_file
Joined: 6/25/2006
Msg: 105
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/21/2011 9:36:19 PM

Can you state any times when someone was better off for smoking weed at their leisure. Any big scientific breakthroughs from those that smoke other than government conspiracy thoughts.



Three names off the top of my head:

- Carl Sagan
- Stephen Jay Gould
- Richard Feynman



Few more:

George Carlin - considered one the most thought provoking comedians of his time.
Bill Maher - a mellow version of George Carlin
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
John F. Kennedy
Aldous Huxley
Alan Watts - a distinguished philosopher who wrote over 25 books - did psychedelic drugs
John Lennon
The Beatles
Pink Floyd
Johnny Carson
And yours truly
 veevee
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 106
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/21/2011 10:02:24 PM
I was asking the person I quoted to answer that lol
You have what you need to make your petitions - go do it. I goaded you into giving what you should take and you should be able to expand on it. May need some studies behind your back too. I still don't think you will legalize it. Get yourselves some marches going and pickets signs lol It's a drug to me and always will be. You are about 5 strong now - make it work!
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 107
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 4:45:39 AM
Interesting take re: Rosa Parks...

I think I might get your point. Rosa may have just "disobeyed" because she was personally fed up. The consequence of her action was immense in relation to the intent.

So...The pot smokers smoke in defiance of the bad law, and their intent appears to the casual observer to be to just get reeeaaaalllly high and enjoy oreos. But if these acts did lead to the overturn of the law, those consequences could wind up being bigger, too. Economic benefit to cessation of the war on drugs, not to mention potential for increased tax revenue, and safer supply, and no more innocent bystanders being hurt as Boss Hogg gives chase to the giggling stoner... And in a more abstract sense, I would dearly love to see our Nanny State begin to shift focus AWAY from protecting citizens from themselves and try to protect them from others. That would be a massive shift...

OK. I'll buy it. Although I still won't toke it up. I don't use calculus any more, so I don't need it. Plus, it made me hungry, and my aging metabolism is unforgiving.

As for the perpetual pothead...Of course I don't have statistics to back my claim that whiny wake-n-bakes outnumber thoughtful users 12:1. Can you imagine that survey?

1) How often do you smoke weed?
2) How often do you use words you can neither spell nor define?
3) How many hours/day do you spend playing video games?
4) Do you think the show "Jackass" is super-funny?
5) Are you capable of crafting a coherent argument without lapsing into tired catchphrases that mean absolutely nothing?




Yeah, I'm thinkin' that data could be tough to come by!

You know darn well it's true, though. You know this perpetual pothead child. Using THC to salve imaginary wounds, hiding in the basement sucking his/her thumb...In all fairness, it could be anything -From Cheetos to booze to crack, I guess. It's not Mary Jane's fault she is used improperly...

Again, though - I must again confess to some bias. I was friends with this person. He spouted off about esoteric concepts like nihilism, quoted Schopenauer, Dostoyevsky, but was utterly incapable of a coherent argument. He was also incredibly whiny.

It reminds me of many atheists. Rather than answering a believer's sincere query, they cobble together facts from Wikipedia that prove Noah never built an ark, then smugly pat themselves on the back for having won the "argument." Again with the disclaimer: The atheists arguing on the other thread here didn't really do that. I found that heartening and illuminating.

Good stuff - Thanks!
 veevee
Joined: 2/14/2006
Msg: 109
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 9:46:48 AM
Sounds to me like another way of saying "Dam... good answer" ;-) Besides, the person you quoted was HalftimeDad... and I'm sure he would/could give a good answer too, and if not then like me, just doesn't have that info to hand so really .... any question posed in a forum can be answered by anyone, no?

Sounds to me like you got your panties in a bunch because I didn't give you attention yesterday. I was talking to the person that wasn't on a mission. The one with reason and since they didn't respond in time for me to leave that evening I made my farewells.

Certainly seems to be ignoring the question lol ;-)

The question was intended to be a snipe. They were so pedantic they were trying to find semantic complaints - reaching and stretching and I wasn't the only person to note it. It's the sign that you are afraid you are losing aww

In their earlier statements they chastised me bringing things out of topic but you 2 were high-fiving what you thought was your stopper. It didn't matter that you were breaking your own rules of engagement as long as you thought it won your little quibble. I told them I wasn't arguing with them and I didn't - is that morally incorrect to you? They were refreshing the page at an OCD rate just hoping I would respond.

I don't have to talk to anyone that approaches me incorrectly - not in your thread or any other. This isn't your personal country - it's a forum post. You were right along with them glowing over their clever word skills and found yourself in the same ignore boat though each of you heartily responded to all of my posts with vigor as if you really thought that I was talking to you. Hint, I'll quote you when I'm talking to you. I just have to know - did you privately message each other and talk about how much you were dominating and talk about the day you are freeeeee to express yourself getting high on the street? Maybe even talk about getting high together and meeting. That is soooo the way I envision it. I want to believe that I begat your bromance. That also is a rhetorical question and I know how to spell it.

I can tear both of you down with one hand on my foot. When you can debate well then you can approach me. You will start with facts and leave the rest at the door to continue debating me if you see me around and want round 2. This was an argument for you - I came to debate.

This thread is dead, it's circular and all has been said that I wanted to say. ~toodles
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 110
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 9:50:14 AM

George Carlin - considered one the most thought provoking comedians of his time.
Bill Maher - a mellow version of George Carlin
George Washington
Thomas Jefferson
John F. Kennedy
Aldous Huxley
Alan Watts - a distinguished philosopher who wrote over 25 books - did psychedelic drugs
John Lennon
The Beatles
Pink Floyd
Johnny Carson
And yours truly


Everyone on this list is awesome EXCEPT Bill Maher. Please remove him from all lists :) I can't stand the sound of his voice. He needs to go away.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 112
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 11:46:12 AM
@ Irregulator


"It's wrong because it's illegal" = circular argument


Et tu Bruté?

This entire thread has erroneously conflated law with legality. To say "It's wrong because it's unlawful" would be circular because law is very much associated with morality and justice. The phrase "It's wrong because it's illegal" isn't circular, just circular-looking nonsense arising from a false implication; legality has NOTHING to do with morality.

(BTW...Glad to see you again...You guys look good together.)
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 114
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 12:05:00 PM
^^^deep sigh. I understand that disclaimers are often a passive-aggressive way of spewing snark and dodging reprisal. However, although you don't know me, please believe my disclaimers were sincere. Fo realz. In any case, not really fair to leave them off when one cuts and pastes:-(

I was buying the rosa parks analogy. It initially gave me heartburn, due to my admitted prejudice against the chronically stoned, but I was attempting to convey the fact that you had enabled a shift in my perspective, something I value greatly. So thanks:)

I will admit freely that my exposure to perpetual cannabis users is skewed. I work in a field with smart people. Smart people with a helluva lot to lose, and who are subject to drug testing. They seldom smoke pot. In contrast- I worked in restaurants and bars for years to put myself through school. Those colleagues smoked LOTS of pot. All the time. Their answers to my tongue-in-cheek research study questions would have been quite uniform. I see them around sometimes, and they are exactly the same. While each one of us must follow our own bliss, I am skeptical that this involves nothing but video games and cannabis for anyone.

With the former pothead friend. Yes, it's likely he has a smattering of mental illness. Who doesn't? Weed did not make him useless, but it entertains him and fosters his delusions of grandeur as he sucks his thumb and whines about his misfortunes. His example is by no means an argument against legalization, only an attempt to admit possible prejudice against the drug on my part.

Finally...the atheist thing. Waaay off topic, and my fault. Sowwy. But this is is where that sincere disclaimer thing comes into play. I've long been fascinated by atheism. What is the difference between the atheist's worldview and mine? What does it feel like to genuinely and sincerely believe there is no god at all? So I've always tried to talk to them, and I was consistently frustrated at their unwillingness to comprehend the fact that I, a marginal Christian, did not consider the bible to be word-for-word edicts from god, and that I also was skeptical of the image of the wrathful white-bearded jehovah hurling judgment from on high. I also tired quickly of accusations of insanity and/or mental retardation.

Then I read a few blogs from other atheists. Thoughtful, considered, coherent arguments, and respectful responses to my questions. It was great. So my disclaimer expressed delight that the atheists on here were closer to the ones on freethoughts than to those at the other place. Now I can't remember why I brought up the annoying types of atheist in the first place.


So now that I've gone COMPLETELY off topic, my sincerest apologies to the OP...and thanks for a good question!
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 116
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 12:57:25 PM
^^^thanks! Was a thought-provoking question, and your skill in quenching potential cyber-flames makes it fun to participate!
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 3:21:33 PM
Even though it is a mistake to conflate legality with morality (we do not operate under a justice system: but rather, a legal one), it is also a mistake to suggest that there is no relation between the two whatsoever. Even though I adhere to the proposition that morality is entirely subjective, we can also draw parallels between what may be termed 'popular' morality, and law. For example, activities such as murder, rape, robbery, etc are, I think it is fair to say, considered to be morally reprehensible by the vast majority of people, under normal conditions. Hence there are legal sanctions against such activity.

It is also important to remember that, whilst all men may be created equal, this state of affairs ceases to exist the moment one becomes a part of any greater social structure. Power relations are never symmetrical, and any legal system will always operate for the benefit of a certain class of people over others. Perhaps clergy, royalty, ranking members of a certain political party, or in the case of what is popularly called 'The West', the bourgeois.

I guess the crux of the issue is that legality functions as an expression of power, whereas morality most certainly does not.
 Kohmelo
Joined: 9/20/2011
Msg: 123
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/22/2011 6:30:15 PM


Everyone on this list is awesome EXCEPT Bill Maher. Please remove him from all lists :) I can't stand the sound of his voice. He needs to go away.

I second that
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 124
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 4:58:37 AM
Weed smoking: The only reason it's illegal is because, way back when, there was a hate campaign by the timber industry (hemp paper is a lot better than wood paper) against it.... If it had never been decided to be an illegal substance, I believe 80% of the stigma's against the likes of me wouldn't exist. If I choose to smoke it, despite knowing it's against the law, have I done something morally wrong?


God made marijuana. Man made the law. Fast food is more deadly than marijuana. Perfectly legal. No one has ever OD'd on marijuana, but one could OD on over the counter drugs like aspirin. The more deadly of the two is illegal. The only people who really criticize marijuana tend to be people who never used it. They do not know the difference between marijuana, heroin, or crack. Alcohol is far more deadly than marijuana, yet it is legal, but heavily regulated. A UA is an invasion of privacy, that is immoral in itself.

I like your example about industrial hemp. The forefathers of this country used hemp paper, there is no reason for deforestation across the world.

If marijuana was legal, and the government did it right, we would have no more debt. Neither political party dares to touch that with a 10 foot poll, because they are all cowards and the drug and lumber companies own them.

Laws do not determine right from wrong. Do not accept authority as truth. Accept truth as the authority.

Before some judgmental a$$hole comes on here trying to be funny and tell me that I am wrong, it is my duty to inform them that I don't drink alcohol, smoke marijuana, or use any other illegal drug. If you don't believe me, I will submit a urine sample for you and have it shipped to your home at my expense.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 125
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 5:04:00 AM

Pot was made illegal for bull shit reasons. Hell George Washington grew pot. You dont think he smoke some pot when he grew it. Doctors used to prescribe it. It was made illegal under calling it marijuana when it was called hemp before.

We look up to People Like Martin Luther King. We look up to people who ran the underground railroad. We look up to People like Ghandi. Every single one of them broke the law to do as they did.


 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 128
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 10:57:04 AM

If you pick and choose what laws are ok to break then you devolve the system into your own. You can dislike a law all you want and attempt to change it. As long as there IS a law prohibiting it, you are wrong (ie:morally incorrect) for performing the action -

If that were true, the US would not exist as a country. The people who founded certainly broke the law to do so and they would also be referred to as terrorists by the legal definition of terrorist. Civil disobedience is a long tanding tradition in the US.

everytime you expect someone else to uphold the law and not steal your things or kill your family when you leave for work and stop protecting them - you are relying on laws.

No, it isn't. It's expecting someone to not steal my stuff to whatever extent it's not in his/her best interests to do so. I expect people to not do things mostly for moral reasons and for most people, that's enough. I expect people who have no moral inhibition from doing those things to do them, which is why I and most people lock up stuff we don't want stolen. The law just provides a little incentive for te latter to make a jusgment about risk vs benefit when stealing something.

You also kept a drug dealer in business.

The drug dealer was created by the legal system when drugs were made illegal. The drug dealer wouldn't exist if the illegality of drugs did'nt create the opportunity for large profits from selling drugs which would otherwise be dirt cheap. (Also, the black markets are actually probably the only examples of true free enterprise in existence.)

Saying I will smoke pot because I think it's ok is breaking the law here - the proper way to go about it is to change laws or move to another area where you can smoke it if it's THAT important to you.

I don't smoke pot, so technically it isn't important to me that pot be available. On the other hand, I wouldn't lift a finger to help enforce those laws and if I could prevent an arrest of someone for pot, I'd certainly do what I could. Civil disobedience is a way of working to change the law. Laws change when enough people refuse to obey them and the cost of enforcement becomes excessive. Civil disobedience has been the primary means from which deocracy and constitutional law evolved throught history. It's responsible for some of the most famous documents in the history of democracy, like the Magna Carta and the US Declaration of Independence. Those documents came about from (illegal) rebellion to authority. Basically, you have a moral duty to disobey laws you believe are morally unjust. Are you going to argue that because the rebellions were illegal, that democracy is a sham?
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 129
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 7:04:33 PM

Even though it is a mistake to conflate legality with morality (we do not operate under a justice system: but rather, a legal one), it is also a mistake to suggest that there is no relation between the two whatsoever. Even though I adhere to the proposition that morality is entirely subjective, we can also draw parallels between what may be termed 'popular' morality, and law. For example, activities such as murder, rape, robbery, etc are, I think it is fair to say, considered to be morally reprehensible by the vast majority of people, under normal conditions. Hence there are legal sanctions against such activity.

It is also important to remember that, whilst all men may be created equal, this state of affairs ceases to exist the moment one becomes a part of any greater social structure. Power relations are never symmetrical, and any legal system will always operate for the benefit of a certain class of people over others. Perhaps clergy, royalty, ranking members of a certain political party, or in the case of what is popularly called 'The West', the bourgeois.

I guess the crux of the issue is that legality functions as an expression of power, whereas morality most certainly does not.


Just had to repost. Yowza and holy smokes. Succinct, eloquent, clear, impeccable logic. May I clone you, please?

The examination of Power's role in the difference between morality and legality. That's what I MEANT to say...
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 130
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 10:14:44 PM

it is a mistake to conflate legality with morality

Yes it is, but is is no less a mistake to conflate legality with law, as is done far more often. This is unfortunate because law and morality, while not synonymous, are very closely related.


we do not operate under a justice system: but rather, a legal one

In practice, this is generally true, however justice is "hidden" beneath the deceptive veil of amoral legality and is accessible to those who are willing to fight for justice.


…activities such as murder, rape, robbery, etc are, I think it is fair to say, considered to be morally reprehensible by the vast majority of people, under normal conditions.

It is no less fair to say that ANY activities causing substantial harm are considered morally reprehensible by the vast majority. We didn't have to wait until somebody "passed a law" to deal with crime. People under natural law (do no harm) have been dealing with such crimes since we came down from the trees, if not before. Legal sanctions were not required.


whilst all men may be created equal, this state of affairs ceases to exist the moment one becomes a part of any greater social structure. Power relations are never symmetrical, and any legal system will always operate for the benefit of a certain class of people over others. Perhaps clergy, royalty, ranking members of a certain political party, or in the case of what is popularly called 'The West', the bourgeois.

That state of affairs does not change in law, only in "legality". Until we contract to put ourselves under another's authority, or are incompetent to govern our own affairs, we are our own highest authority by law. I will agree with you that legal systems have always operated for the benefit of a certain class of people, (which only reinforces my argument that we ought not be governed by something's legality so much as justice), but disagree strongly that it will always be so. Even now there is a rising tide of people fighting for justice in the legal system…and they are winning.


I guess the crux of the issue is that legality functions as an expression of power, whereas morality most certainly does not.

On this I agree.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 10:26:59 PM

Until we contract to put ourselves under another's authority, or are incompetent to govern our own affairs, we are our own highest authority by law.


Sigh... you are making me miss America already. This was the purpose.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 134
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 11:26:34 PM

Is it satire because you're leaving or soon leaving America and "this was the purpose" is reffering to the fact that the quote is exactly what I was trying to get at in OP? If so just don't forget nationality has next to no control on an individials thought process haha .... If I've not understood your comment ..... I prefer my interpretation haha ;-)


Oh it was just an off topic lamenting of what was once the great American experiment. Only to be handily given away to those that know better. With the best intentions of course. :(
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 137
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/23/2011 11:53:52 PM

Until we contract to put ourselves under another's authority, or are incompetent to govern our own affairs, we are our own highest authority by law.


Copying it one more time in the hopes that search engines will retain it for future generations to happenstance upon it.

Volumes could be written on that sentence alone. As for the OP... This is the resolution. Just Ducky isn't it? :)

Even if America fails and eventually in some distant future another experiment is born it will again be born on this same sentiment. It is the natural order.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/24/2011 3:10:30 AM
Jury nullification is another tactic to force the politicians to do away with unjust laws. On one jury I was on, we had to find the defendent not guilty, no necessarily because any of us thought he was not guilty, but that the case presented by the DA was so circumstantial and full of holes as to be laughable.

This from.....Paul Butler, a former federal prosecutor, is a professor of law at George Washington University
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/21/opinion/jurors-can-say-no.html?_r=3
 Gertrude13
Joined: 7/31/2011
Msg: 141
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/24/2011 7:34:29 AM

1) Probably averages out to once a fortnight over the last year. For many reasons, however I would smoke it more if able to.
2) Quite often lol
3) Rough estimation from averaging past 6 months: An hour? Probably less as I can go days and days without playing it...
4) I think it has it's "super-funny" moments .... otherwise just quite funny....
sometimes (though rarely IMH) not very funny at all.
5) I like to think so, you tell me?


You, youngster, do a fantastic job of dispelling the prejudices of crabby old broads such as myself!

2) Yes, your spelling is lousy. However, your word choices show an excellent and intuitive grasp of the English language, thus dispelling my personal myth that misspelling implies sloppy word use and poor language skills. Well done!

5) I would have to agree with you there, as well. Your question was compelling, and you show a trait all-too-often rare in forumites where you attempt to discern the intent of the post and address that, rather than seeking out quibbles for the specific purpose of starting a flame war. You also appear to be skilled at quenching flames that threaten to pop up. This may not denote academic prowess, but it does portray a very briskly-clicking brain...

Soooo...See what you did? You provided a lovely counterpoint, a direct contradiction to my image of the whiny thumb-sucking pothead. You also gave me a flash of hope that your generation may someday be able to clean up the mess my generation and those before have left for you. I'm still not gonna smoke pot, but it really and truly seems to work for you.

When my profile was sincere, I had listed "dispelling preconceptions - Especially my own" as one of my interests. What better place to do that than n a forum such as this?

Again I say, nicely done!
 Jan Sobieski
Joined: 7/4/2008
Msg: 143
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/24/2011 11:55:30 PM

Yes it is, but is is no less a mistake to conflate legality with law, as is done far more often. This is unfortunate because law and morality, while not synonymous, are very closely related.


Whose morality? Yours? Mine? Rupert Murdoch's? From whence does this 'law' spring forth? As far as I can see, there are certain acts which evoke in most of us a certain aesthetic distaste, and these acts we are wont to call 'unjust'. However, it does not follow from this that such distaste is necessarily 'natural', but merely 'normal'. And, as has been shown time and time again, 'norms' are very much dependent on the prevailing social paradigms: i.e, the way in which people have been 'habituated'.

It is no less fair to say that ANY activities causing substantial harm are considered morally reprehensible by the vast majority. We didn't have to wait until somebody "passed a law" to deal with crime. People under natural law (do no harm) have been dealing with such crimes since we came down from the trees, if not before. Legal sanctions were not required.

On the first point, I disagree. One need look no further than the approval ratings for the Iraq War in 2003 to see that this is fallacy, and again I would suggest that habituation played a large part in this. On the second point, it is ludicrous to suggest that one has committed a crime until at least one law 'has been passed' in one form or another. By this I mean to say that laws, at their most basic, are agreements made concerning conduct between individuals, and this does in fact qualify as a codification of sorts.


Until we contract to put ourselves under another's authority, or are incompetent to govern our own affairs, we are our own highest authority by law.


Again I ask, who is it that is qualified to say that one is incompetent to govern themselves? And, to suggest that one is a law unto themselves, as I believe you are doing, is either an extremely dangerous position to take, or one that is most insipid.
We are of course, ALL 'laws unto ourselves', insofar as we can act in a certain way, or not. As for a system governed by 'justice'? Well, we have known for more than 2000 years that this is would be an utmost folly. As I have stated in another thread, one cannot rationalize essentially emotive concepts such as justice into a codified system without destroying many of the things that we as humans hold dear.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 12:07:20 AM

Again I ask, who is it that is qualified to say that one is incompetent to govern themselves? And, to suggest that one is a law unto themselves, as I believe you are doing, is either an extremely dangerous position to take, or one that is most insipid.


This one is pretty simple.

Who is capable of being a law unto themselves. The common man. Nothing more special then your average every day baker, construction worker, policie officer, business man.

Is it a dangerous postion. No. If you accept that it is natural to try to be just.

It is dangerous. If you can't trust. :)
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 145
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 12:58:03 AM

Whose morality? Yours? Mine? Rupert Murdoch's?

Any act which deliberately causes harm to another is fundamentally immoral, and therefore a crime.


From whence does this 'law' spring forth?

From the implied social contract wherein we agree not to (for instance) kill others in with the expectation that others will agree not to kill us. Put in terms of rights & obligations, it may be said that it is a universal agreement among reasonable people that we have the right to not be harmed by another and the corresponding obligation to grant that right to others. Failure to do so may be considered a breach of the contract in which your right may be forfeit.

I would suggest that this evolved naturally as the optimal adaptive behaviour for intelligent communal animals such as human beings,as it probably promoted the survival and even thriving of human communities.


One need look no further than the approval ratings for the Iraq War in 2003 to see that this is fallacy


This only proves that most people don't think. They were programmed to believe the usual politically motivated lies that always precede a war. The fools probably thought they were doing the right thing; who really thinks of himself as a bad guy that would kill & dismember innocent women and children 10,000 miles away? I suspect that the approval ratings would have dropped drastically if the people in favour of the war had to go there themselves and murder innocents.


it is ludicrous to suggest that one has committed a crime until at least one law 'has been passed' in one form or another. By this I mean to say that laws, at their most basic, are agreements made concerning conduct between individuals, and this does in fact qualify as a codification of sorts.


Setting aside the mythical nature of the story for a moment, are you suggesting that what Cain did to Abel wasn't murder and should not have been punished because a law against murder hadn't been codified yet? Sorry; I have to disagree.


who is it that is qualified to say that one is incompetent to govern themselves?


That comes under another concept you probably never heard of, the obligation to care. An infant is unable to live more than a day or two without the loving care of his parent(s). In such a case, I suppose you could say that rightly or wrongly, they consider themselves qualified to say when the child is able to look after himself. What if the child is born severely retarded and is never able to "function" in our miserable excuse for a society? Should he be left on a rock to die when he turns "of legal age"? I'll admit that there is a slippery slope here, as many people are "borderline functional." I would suggest in those cases that they be given as much independence to govern themselves as is reasonably possible.


As for a system governed by 'justice'? Well, we have known for more than 2000 years that this is would be an utmost folly. As I have stated in another thread, one cannot rationalize essentially emotive concepts such as justice into a codified system without destroying many of the things that we as humans hold dear.


Why would it be folly? Justice isn't an emotive concept; it is ingrained into our very being. Fairness is learned very young. You can hear it in playgrounds for God's sake! "Hey…No fair!" If little kids know what's fair & what isn't, why shouldn't reasoning adults? Is the problem a codified system? In that case i have to agree with you in many respects. Justice should be reasoned, not codified. That's why I stand against the miserable legal system we have today. I refuse to let what some slob wrote on a piece of paper somewhere stand in the way of the things I hold most dear.
 DomG79
Joined: 3/12/2011
Msg: 146
Breaking the law: A morality issue?
Posted: 12/25/2011 3:36:45 AM

You also kept a drug dealer in business.



The drug dealer was created by the legal system when drugs were made illegal. The drug dealer wouldn't exist if the illegality of drugs did'nt create the opportunity for large profits from selling drugs which would otherwise be dirt cheap. (Also, the black markets are actually probably the only examples of true free enterprise in existence.)




You cannot call what we have in the US a "free market".
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >