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)
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)