Separate post for a separate top-level moral dilemma.
I have from time to time become aware of the possession of illegal (according to this country’s laws) drugs for a person for personal use. While this is a law-breaking behaviour; (either a stranger or someone I know well) I don’t feel like it has been my place to make it known to authorities.
Dilemma: Illegal but relatively harmless to others.
Dilemma: Ruin the social presence of someone I know for the purpose of upholding the law/Ruin the day of a stranger I barely know (and not have personal consequences).
even if I don’t agree with the laws; I should encourage their upkeep; and signal their upkeep wherever possible. (try to act in a way that if all players in the ideal world acted in this way the world would be better) If people more regularly tried to adhere to the law; there may be less car accidents; less drunk driving… less other.. etc.
even if I don’t agree with the laws; I should encourage their upkeep; and signal their upkeep wherever possible
Shouldn’t you consider not just “does society benefit from encouraging laws to be enforced?”, but also “does society benefit from encouraging laws like this to be enforced?” Helping enforce a bad law encourages society to produce and enforce more laws like that one, not just laws in general.
Would you report someone to the authorities if they were gay and that was illegal?
I wouldn’t be encouraging more people to be flaunting the law to change the law. I would also not be reporting instances of the breaking of the law that I became aware of where I did not feel they should receive punshment for their actions.
I don’t believe I can conclude on my own whether society benefits from the existence of laws, nor can I say that any one law benefits society, (I will leave that up to the research and statistics)
(for a side note into an interesting debate—what would you be saying to me if my answer to your question was—yes; breaking of the law should be reported?)
I don’t believe I can conclude on my own whether society benefits from the existence of laws, nor can I say that any one law benefits society
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not benefit society.
(for a side note into an interesting debate—what would you be saying to me if my answer to your question was—yes; breaking of the law should be reported?)
I’d be pointing out that it’s the equivalent of saying “it’s wrong to lie, even if that means the Gestapo would find out about the Jews in your basement” or “you should always keep your promise, even if you promised to kill your firstborn”—it’s an extreme position that is great at signalling commitment to a position because you″ll probably never have to make good on it. If you alieved that breaking of the law should be reported, even if the law says that homosexuality is punishable by death, then you’re just a human Clippy and need to be treated accordingly.
I purposely removed the specific cases, to talk about the more general concept of “law”. Humans will have great difficulty having a reasonable debate over a specific law like in the examples you have chosen. (They are particularly emotive ones)
I don’t believe I can conclude on my own whether society benefits from the existence of laws, nor can I
say that any one law benefits society.
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not >benefit society.
These statements are not mutually exclusive. I’d like to try again to be clear that I meant “The existence of laws” not “the existence of this one specific law”.
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not
benefit society.
In the interest of demonstrating (my point) the inability to reason one law’s benefits to society (or to prove your point) - please reason out your entire conclusion from start to finish of why:
a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not benefit society.
I expect this reasoning to be some thousands of words long to reason out entirely your point. (because precisely my point is that its not that simple)
For your second comment; Can you make the argument without referring to a specific law?
(also please refrain from making judgements on others, feel free to judge an argument, tear it to shreds; but not the person who makes it)
Apologies for the edit: I seem to be having troubles getting formatting to work the way I want it to.
No, for the same reason Clippy can’t see my argument that it’s not beneficial to tile the universe with paper clips. All arguments like this depend on certain premises, and you either share those premises with me or you don’t. If you don’t, no argument can be given. And in this case, if you do, the argument is trivial.
If nearly all people 50 years ago thought homosexuality should be punishable by death, then there would have been quite a lot of executed homosexuals back then. There were in Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany is not “nearly all people” and when Germany did stop mass murdering homosexuals, it didn’t happen because someone made a successful argument.
If nearly all people today think homosexuality should be punishable by death, there would be a lot more executed than actually are. Of course, there are large groups which still think so, but I doubt they can be persuaded by argument, and in that sense they are equivalent to Clippy.
even if I don’t agree with the laws; I should encourage their upkeep; and signal their upkeep wherever possible
I strongly disagree. Laws are made for a variety of reasons, some of them are quite bad and/or immoral. I feel that the inclination to “encourage the upkeep” of a law just because it’s a law is an entirely wrong way to go about it.
Some laws are bad and for them to go away they need to encounter pushback.
The following is not a well reasoned out thought:
where there are options of actions in life including:
Breaking a “not good law”
Protesting a “not good law”
Campaigning to change a “not good law”
Encouraging others to also break a “not good law”
I would not be encouraging anyone that breaking said law is the best way to have it changed.
Where I don’t think restriction on lockpicking is a good law to have; I would not be encouraging anyone to take up lockpicking in protest of the law that I don’t think is a good law. (For some background—lockpicking is pretty easy; the only reason our locks are not more immune to lock picking is something of security-through-obscurity where if no one knows how to pick a lock; we don’t need lock-pick-proof locks. In ~10 years metal 3D printing of bump keys will probably make most of our current locks a lot more useless than they currently are, we should probably make changes now in preparation of that)
The nature of the legal system currently (while I am no expert) is that the whole body is taken to be one body of law. And to break one law is to break the social contract that you live by in society. (I am no expert but) Some reading that might help explain what I am going on about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contracthttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito
Although I would be pleased to be shown how out of my depth I am...
And to break one law is to break the social contract that you live by in society.
Well, I don’t know about Australia, but in the US it’s pretty impossible to live without breaking laws (this is by design, in case you’re wondering). There is an interesting book about it. I think you have a highly idealistic perception of how the legal system works.
I went in search of the well reasoned out philosophy of law that I was trying to impart with some sentences of my own and then I stumbled across this quote:
Sometimes breaking the law is the right thing to do, but it is never legal.
source of discussion (Not an amazing source; but some interesting points are raised)
To break the law; and “pushback” on the law, as you described it; is still illegal. Such is the nature of the law. Just because its not a good law; And breaking it might be the right thing to do; does not mean that what you are doing is legal or above the law.
In seeking clarity I would like to separate right and wrong from legal and illegal. These are entirely separate things. One should signal abiding legally first; then consider subjective right and wrong afterwards.
...one should consider subjective right and wrong first...
Where right and wrong may not initially be clear—the legal system (usually) has an existing opinion on the matter (or at least a way to work through it), and where (I believe) the legal system was built for the purpose of assisting with right and wrong.
To take an example that I really don’t want to use; It was once believed that some of the now common sexual practices was sexual deviance and was murderous in magnitude of wrongness.
the subjective right and wrong at the time would have said that these actions are wrong. The legal system at the time would have also said that these actions are wrong. If we consider now that subjecting right and wrong has changed, (although slow to catch up) so has the legal system.
The legal system was built to provide a framework for punishment to occur for actions that are subjectively wrong ( the legal system exists for several reasons, some of them are: Justice; deterence; punishment; order).
The legal system is not meant to be anything but in line with right and wrong. (with the disadvantage of being slow moving to catch up) (examples of slow moving might also include; patents—especially on programming and gene technology, digital crimes, individual freedom to not be monitored)
where (I believe) the legal system was built for the purpose of assisting with right and wrong.
Sorry, still disagreeing. The justice system enforces a particular set of rules for a society. It’s purpose is not to assist, but to enforce which seems obvious to me. The purpose of enforcement is to shape the behaviour by providing strong disincetives to certain activities declared criminal.
There is, of course, a correlation between what most of the population considers to be morally wrong and what is illegal. But it’s only a correlation and not a perfect match. The justice system is also bent to serve the interests of the powerful at the expense of the powerless.
the subjective right and wrong at the time would have said that these actions are wrong
I don’t know about that. If it’s “subjective”, doesn’t it depend on the person? Are you willing to accept the moral opinion of the majority as “right”?
The legal system is not meant to be anything but in line with right and wrong
Surely it is. It is meant to provide a society with a set of rules to keep it running, keep certain social groups powerful and other powerless (aka keeping the proles under control), etc. etc.
Take, I don’t know, say, licensing laws which regulate which professions must have a license to practice and which need not. Is there really a moral distiniction there?
The laws are many and their number is literally uncountable. I am not willing to believe that all these thousands of laws and regulations stem from an attempt to “assist with right and wrong”.
Do the laws stem from an attempt to assist with right and wrong?
this question should be easy to answer; it would only be a matter of finding one that does not (from the uncountable set). I will not actively look; but keep my eye out as I encounter legalese and continue to ask the question.
While the law can have other goals i.e. control of people by other people. I don’t think this is a primary goal and might be a subversion of the purpose (just because someone could and did does not mean that is the way it should be.)
I sincerely hope I never find any active law that exists for purposes other than to assist with right and wrong. (otherwise I should be motivated to try to change it)
Separate post for a separate top-level moral dilemma.
I have from time to time become aware of the possession of illegal (according to this country’s laws) drugs for a person for personal use. While this is a law-breaking behaviour; (either a stranger or someone I know well) I don’t feel like it has been my place to make it known to authorities.
Dilemma: Illegal but relatively harmless to others. Dilemma: Ruin the social presence of someone I know for the purpose of upholding the law/Ruin the day of a stranger I barely know (and not have personal consequences).
even if I don’t agree with the laws; I should encourage their upkeep; and signal their upkeep wherever possible. (try to act in a way that if all players in the ideal world acted in this way the world would be better) If people more regularly tried to adhere to the law; there may be less car accidents; less drunk driving… less other.. etc.
Shouldn’t you consider not just “does society benefit from encouraging laws to be enforced?”, but also “does society benefit from encouraging laws like this to be enforced?” Helping enforce a bad law encourages society to produce and enforce more laws like that one, not just laws in general.
Would you report someone to the authorities if they were gay and that was illegal?
(See the other reply; http://lesswrong.com/lw/m6c/wild_moral_dilemmas/cdlg)
I wouldn’t be encouraging more people to be flaunting the law to change the law. I would also not be reporting instances of the breaking of the law that I became aware of where I did not feel they should receive punshment for their actions.
I don’t believe I can conclude on my own whether society benefits from the existence of laws, nor can I say that any one law benefits society, (I will leave that up to the research and statistics)
(for a side note into an interesting debate—what would you be saying to me if my answer to your question was—yes; breaking of the law should be reported?)
flouting
thanks. not sure if I should correct because then it makes this comment irrelevant.
I believe that I can conclude on my own that a law making homosexuality punishable by death does not benefit society.
I’d be pointing out that it’s the equivalent of saying “it’s wrong to lie, even if that means the Gestapo would find out about the Jews in your basement” or “you should always keep your promise, even if you promised to kill your firstborn”—it’s an extreme position that is great at signalling commitment to a position because you″ll probably never have to make good on it. If you alieved that breaking of the law should be reported, even if the law says that homosexuality is punishable by death, then you’re just a human Clippy and need to be treated accordingly.
I purposely removed the specific cases, to talk about the more general concept of “law”. Humans will have great difficulty having a reasonable debate over a specific law like in the examples you have chosen. (They are particularly emotive ones)
These statements are not mutually exclusive. I’d like to try again to be clear that I meant “The existence of laws” not “the existence of this one specific law”.
In the interest of demonstrating (my point) the inability to reason one law’s benefits to society (or to prove your point) - please reason out your entire conclusion from start to finish of why:
I expect this reasoning to be some thousands of words long to reason out entirely your point. (because precisely my point is that its not that simple)
For your second comment; Can you make the argument without referring to a specific law?
(also please refrain from making judgements on others, feel free to judge an argument, tear it to shreds; but not the person who makes it)
Apologies for the edit: I seem to be having troubles getting formatting to work the way I want it to.
What does “nor can I say that any one law benefits society” mean, then, if not “for all X, where X is a law, I can’t say that X benefits society”?
If your statement applies to all laws, it also applies to worst case scenario laws.
(My bad—bad use of words the first time around)
“nor can I say that any one law benefits society” “for all X, where X is a law, I can’t say that X benefits society”
how does: “for one X alone, where X is a law, I can’t say that X benefits society” Sound?
Please explain (or expand) the reference to “worst case scenarios”?
Really, can I see your argument?
No, for the same reason Clippy can’t see my argument that it’s not beneficial to tile the universe with paper clips. All arguments like this depend on certain premises, and you either share those premises with me or you don’t. If you don’t, no argument can be given. And in this case, if you do, the argument is trivial.
So from your point of view nearly all people up to ~50 years ago as well as most people today are clippies?
If nearly all people 50 years ago thought homosexuality should be punishable by death, then there would have been quite a lot of executed homosexuals back then. There were in Nazi Germany, but Nazi Germany is not “nearly all people” and when Germany did stop mass murdering homosexuals, it didn’t happen because someone made a successful argument.
If nearly all people today think homosexuality should be punishable by death, there would be a lot more executed than actually are. Of course, there are large groups which still think so, but I doubt they can be persuaded by argument, and in that sense they are equivalent to Clippy.
I strongly disagree. Laws are made for a variety of reasons, some of them are quite bad and/or immoral. I feel that the inclination to “encourage the upkeep” of a law just because it’s a law is an entirely wrong way to go about it.
Some laws are bad and for them to go away they need to encounter pushback.
The following is not a well reasoned out thought: where there are options of actions in life including:
Breaking a “not good law”
Protesting a “not good law”
Campaigning to change a “not good law”
Encouraging others to also break a “not good law”
I would not be encouraging anyone that breaking said law is the best way to have it changed.
Where I don’t think restriction on lockpicking is a good law to have; I would not be encouraging anyone to take up lockpicking in protest of the law that I don’t think is a good law. (For some background—lockpicking is pretty easy; the only reason our locks are not more immune to lock picking is something of security-through-obscurity where if no one knows how to pick a lock; we don’t need lock-pick-proof locks. In ~10 years metal 3D printing of bump keys will probably make most of our current locks a lot more useless than they currently are, we should probably make changes now in preparation of that)
The nature of the legal system currently (while I am no expert) is that the whole body is taken to be one body of law. And to break one law is to break the social contract that you live by in society. (I am no expert but) Some reading that might help explain what I am going on about: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crito Although I would be pleased to be shown how out of my depth I am...
I don’t understand what that means.
Well, I don’t know about Australia, but in the US it’s pretty impossible to live without breaking laws (this is by design, in case you’re wondering). There is an interesting book about it. I think you have a highly idealistic perception of how the legal system works.
I went in search of the well reasoned out philosophy of law that I was trying to impart with some sentences of my own and then I stumbled across this quote:
source of discussion (Not an amazing source; but some interesting points are raised)
To break the law; and “pushback” on the law, as you described it; is still illegal. Such is the nature of the law. Just because its not a good law; And breaking it might be the right thing to do; does not mean that what you are doing is legal or above the law.
In seeking clarity I would like to separate right and wrong from legal and illegal. These are entirely separate things. One should signal abiding legally first; then consider subjective right and wrong afterwards.
Yes, I think it’s an excellent approach.
And that is what I disagree with. I think one should consider subjective right and wrong first and then decide what to do about the legal aspect.
Where right and wrong may not initially be clear—the legal system (usually) has an existing opinion on the matter (or at least a way to work through it), and where (I believe) the legal system was built for the purpose of assisting with right and wrong.
To take an example that I really don’t want to use; It was once believed that some of the now common sexual practices was sexual deviance and was murderous in magnitude of wrongness.
the subjective right and wrong at the time would have said that these actions are wrong. The legal system at the time would have also said that these actions are wrong. If we consider now that subjecting right and wrong has changed, (although slow to catch up) so has the legal system.
The legal system was built to provide a framework for punishment to occur for actions that are subjectively wrong ( the legal system exists for several reasons, some of them are: Justice; deterence; punishment; order).
The legal system is not meant to be anything but in line with right and wrong. (with the disadvantage of being slow moving to catch up) (examples of slow moving might also include; patents—especially on programming and gene technology, digital crimes, individual freedom to not be monitored)
Sorry, still disagreeing. The justice system enforces a particular set of rules for a society. It’s purpose is not to assist, but to enforce which seems obvious to me. The purpose of enforcement is to shape the behaviour by providing strong disincetives to certain activities declared criminal.
There is, of course, a correlation between what most of the population considers to be morally wrong and what is illegal. But it’s only a correlation and not a perfect match. The justice system is also bent to serve the interests of the powerful at the expense of the powerless.
I don’t know about that. If it’s “subjective”, doesn’t it depend on the person? Are you willing to accept the moral opinion of the majority as “right”?
Surely it is. It is meant to provide a society with a set of rules to keep it running, keep certain social groups powerful and other powerless (aka keeping the proles under control), etc. etc.
Take, I don’t know, say, licensing laws which regulate which professions must have a license to practice and which need not. Is there really a moral distiniction there?
The laws are many and their number is literally uncountable. I am not willing to believe that all these thousands of laws and regulations stem from an attempt to “assist with right and wrong”.
Do the laws stem from an attempt to assist with right and wrong? this question should be easy to answer; it would only be a matter of finding one that does not (from the uncountable set). I will not actively look; but keep my eye out as I encounter legalese and continue to ask the question.
While the law can have other goals i.e. control of people by other people. I don’t think this is a primary goal and might be a subversion of the purpose (just because someone could and did does not mean that is the way it should be.)
I sincerely hope I never find any active law that exists for purposes other than to assist with right and wrong. (otherwise I should be motivated to try to change it)