Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

War Against White People

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Sam View Post
    But you are not claiming that something is bad because it abrogated the terms of an explicit contract. You are saying things are bad if they are illegal. Does the illegality of the refusal make the action Morally or ethically bad?
    To knowingly defy the law is bad.

    Second example: it was illegal for Germans to hide Jewish people from Nazis. Was hiding Jewish people from Nazis in WW2 Germany bad?
    Yes. But turning them over to be killed was worse. So, the greater good was hiding them.
    That's what
    - She

    Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
    - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

    I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
    Stephen R. Donaldson

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Jaecp View Post
      So if illegal is bad, then is legal then good?
      Obeying the law is good, yes.
      That's what
      - She

      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
      Stephen R. Donaldson

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
        To knowingly defy the law is bad.



        Yes. But turning them over to be killed was worse. So, the greater good was hiding them.
        So you're saying that there can be no unethical or immoral laws such that defying them is an act of good in itself. Defiance against law can only ever be the lesser evil?

        Tough break, moralists.
        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Sam View Post
          So you're saying that there can be no unethical or immoral laws such that defying them is an act of good in itself.
          Oh no. Not in the least. Laws CAN be unethical, and obeying them will cause a greater harm than defying them. But defying them is still a bad thing. Without law, there is no order.

          Defiance against law can only ever be the lesser evil?
          Correct.

          Tough break, moralists.
          That's an odd statement to make. The moralist will willingly break a law that is unjust and accept the consequences. Doesn't make it "not bad" though.
          That's what
          - She

          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
          Stephen R. Donaldson

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Oh no. Not in the least. Laws CAN be unethical, and obeying them will cause a greater harm than defying them. But defying them is still a bad thing. Without law, there is no order.
            You conflate "a law" with "law" here. The argument is not that law, as a principle, is good but that a law can be bad and disobedience to that law can be a good unto itself.

            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            Correct.
            Let's say the Leftist dystopia that we keep hearing about actually comes around and the Pelosi/Reid/Obama triumvirate issues a decree:

            "Every third-born child shall die at the hand of its mother."

            You're saying that it's only less evil to disobey this law and not morally good to do so. That's confused at best.


            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
            That's an odd statement to make. The moralist will willingly break a law that is unjust and accept the consequences. Doesn't make it "not bad" though.
            Yes, if breaking an unjust law is moral then breaking an unjust law is, by definition, "not bad." Again, I think you confuse the general principle of law with particular laws, thinking that the moral authority of the general passes down to each and every particular. This would be incorrect.
            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Sam View Post
              You conflate "a law" with "law" here. The argument is not that law, as a principle, is good but that a law can be bad and disobedience to that law can be a good unto itself.
              Which I deny. No one should be able to determine which laws they consider "good" and worth obeying. There are always negative effects of breaching the law, therefore, doing so can not be declared truly "good".


              Let's say the Leftist dystopia that we keep hearing about actually comes around and the Pelosi/Reid/Obama triumvirate issues a decree:

              "Every third-born child shall die at the hand of its mother."

              You're saying that it's only less evil to disobey this law and not morally good to do so. That's confused at best.
              It can not be morally good to disobey a law. It can be morally "better" than obeying it, but disobedience is not morally "good".



              Yes, if breaking an unjust law is moral then breaking an unjust law is, by definition, "not bad." Again, I think you confuse the general principle of law with particular laws, thinking that the moral authority of the general passes down to each and every particular. This would be incorrect.
              That's what
              - She

              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
              Stephen R. Donaldson

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                Which I deny. No one should be able to determine which laws they consider "good" and worth obeying. There are always negative effects of breaching the law, therefore, doing so can not be declared truly "good".

                It can not be morally good to disobey a law. It can be morally "better" than obeying it, but disobedience is not morally "good".
                I maintain that this a confused philosophy of morality and law. Consider the absurdist law: "Every citizen must do one act of evil per day." Most would maintain that it is morally good to disobey this law, as it is at odds with the principle of justice, which gives laws legitimacy.

                Your depiction, however, forces a person to do evil no matter what, as disobeying the law is an evil. I don't know anyone else who would seriously argue this to be the case, nor do I see the logical force that necessitates it.
                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Sam View Post
                  I maintain that this a confused philosophy of morality and law.
                  Whooptie doo! Good for you...

                  Consider the absurdist law: "Every citizen must do one act of evil per day." Most would maintain that it is morally good to disobey this law, as it is at odds with the principle of justice, which gives laws legitimacy.
                  But there is a negative effect to disobedience. Therefore, the "good" is lessened by the disobedience, which is a "bad" thing. For something to be truly "good", it should follow that which is positive. Disobedience is a negative act. Obedience is a positive act.

                  Your depiction, however, forces a person to do evil no matter what, as disobeying the law is an evil. I don't know anyone else who would seriously argue this to be the case, nor do I see the logical force that necessitates it.
                  It's a conclusion I came to after reading Thoreau. Civil disobedience is a necessary evil.
                  That's what
                  - She

                  Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                  - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                  I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                  Stephen R. Donaldson

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                    Whooptie doo! Good for you...

                    But there is a negative effect to disobedience. Therefore, the "good" is lessened by the disobedience, which is a "bad" thing. For something to be truly "good", it should follow that which is positive. Disobedience is a negative act. Obedience is a positive act.

                    It's a conclusion I came to after reading Thoreau. Civil disobedience is a necessary evil.
                    "Disobedience is a negative act" assumes the conclusion. Disobedience to a legitimate law may well be a negative act but disobedience to an illegitimate law need not be. Daniel prays to God with his window open, fulfilling God's command. Has God commanded an act of evil, since it is against the law? No — the law is illegitimate, as it is not just.
                    "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Sam View Post
                      "Disobedience is a negative act" assumes the conclusion.
                      Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/dis


                      dis- a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force

                      © Copyright Original Source



                      DISobedience is a negative thing.

                      Disobedience to a legitimate law may well be a negative act but disobedience to an illegitimate law need not be.
                      It is still moving away from that act in a negative direction. A positive direction would be to reinforce it.

                      Daniel prays to God with his window open, fulfilling God's command. Has God commanded an act of evil, since it is against the law?
                      Bad =/= evil. Daniel knew disobedience was a negative act, but disobeying God was a far greater one.

                      No — the law is illegitimate, as it is not just.
                      You're conflating "bad" with "unjust".
                      That's what
                      - She

                      Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                      - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                      I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                      Stephen R. Donaldson

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Source: dictionary.reference.com/browse/dis


                        dis- a Latin prefix meaning “apart,” “asunder,” “away,” “utterly,” or having a privative, negative, or reversing force

                        © Copyright Original Source



                        DISobedience is a negative thing.
                        It is still moving away from that act in a negative direction. A positive direction would be to reinforce it.

                        Not necessarily, as an act of disobedience can be done as a positive act of obedience to something else, as the examples have all implied. And, even using your definition, you've conflated "negative" with "bad" — this cannot hold, since a negative action (e.g., refraining from swearing) can be considered good.

                        Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                        Bad =/= evil. Daniel knew disobedience was a negative act, but disobeying God was a far greater one.

                        You're conflating "bad" with "unjust".
                        You're going to have to define how you're using the term "bad", then. It definitely seemed that you were attaching moral or ethical weight to word.
                        "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Sam View Post

                          Not necessarily, as an act of disobedience can be done as a positive act of obedience to something else, as the examples have all implied.
                          Which I called the "greater good". But in relation to the original law, it is moving away from it, therefore bad in relation to that particular law.

                          And, even using your definition, you've conflated "negative" with "bad" — this cannot hold, since a negative action (e.g., refraining from swearing) can be considered good.
                          Unless you are commanded to swear. We are not discussing ungrounded choices, we are discussing laws.


                          You're going to have to define how you're using the term "bad", then.
                          That which will get you in trouble for doing.

                          It definitely seemed that you were attaching moral or ethical weight to word.
                          Nope. Just "directional".
                          That's what
                          - She

                          Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                          - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                          I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                          Stephen R. Donaldson

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Which I called the "greater good". But in relation to the original law, it is moving away from it, therefore bad in relation to that particular law.
                            But good in relation to justice. Most people would properly call that action "good" and not "less bad".


                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            Unless you are commanded to swear. We are not discussing ungrounded choices, we are discussing laws.
                            So refraining from swearing can be good, unless I'm commanded to swear by some lesser authority, in which case it becomes "bad". Not killing babies is good unless and until I'm commanded to kill babies by a lesser authority, in which case it becomes "bad".

                            I maintain that's misidentifying the relation of law to goodness at a fundamental level.


                            Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                            That which will get you in trouble for doing.

                            Nope. Just "directional".
                            Directional to what? Getting in trouble? Kristian Joensen, if I'm reading correctly, didn't say "I don't see why crossing the border should get someone in trouble." It read as a moral question: what is morally (or ethically) wrong with crossing arbitrary borders?

                            If that's the case then simply saying "because it will get you in trouble" seems like an insufficient defense.
                            "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Sam View Post
                              But good in relation to justice. Most people would properly call that action "good" and not "less bad".
                              But again, we are talking LAW.


                              So refraining from swearing can be good, unless I'm commanded to swear by some lesser authority, in which case it becomes "bad". Not killing babies is good unless and until I'm commanded to kill babies by a lesser authority, in which case it becomes "bad".
                              Exactly.

                              I maintain that's misidentifying the relation of law to goodness at a fundamental level.
                              And I maintain that it is the proper understanding of law.

                              Directional to what? Getting in trouble?
                              To violating a law.

                              Kristian Joensen, if I'm reading correctly, didn't say "I don't see why crossing the border should get someone in trouble." It read as a moral question: what is morally (or ethically) wrong with crossing arbitrary borders?

                              If that's the case then simply saying "because it will get you in trouble" seems like an insufficient defense.
                              It is perfectly sufficient to me. It's "bad" to break the law of a country's sovereignty and borders.
                              That's what
                              - She

                              Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
                              - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

                              I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
                              Stephen R. Donaldson

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                But again, we are talking LAW.
                                Which is legitimate only inasmuch as it is just. We are not talking only law but the relationship of law to moral action.


                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                Exactly.
                                Put gently, that's an absurdity. It's related to but not-quite-like Divine Command theory, where genocide is perfectly good if YHWH tells you to commit genocide. At best, it's obscuring the notions of "good" and "bad" and so requires a very precise defining of terms.


                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                And I maintain that it is the proper understanding of law.
                                That doesn't follow from what I wrote: I wrote that it was a mis-identification of the relationship between the law and goodness. Simply stating that it's a "proper understanding of the law" doesn't address the issue of good and bad actions in relation to the law.


                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                To violating a law.
                                Directional to violating the law? This is circular: "Breaking the law is bad because it is directional toward breaking the law."


                                Originally posted by Bill the Cat View Post
                                It is perfectly sufficient to me. It's "bad" to break the law of a country's sovereignty and borders.
                                If you attach absolutely no ethical or moral weight to "bad", in this sense, I suppose folks could say "Well, fine ... but who cares? We're talking about right and wrong, good and evil, not 'will this action break some law'."
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Cow Poke, Today, 04:42 PM
                                3 responses
                                15 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 02:40 PM
                                22 responses
                                110 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Gondwanaland  
                                Started by NorrinRadd, Yesterday, 01:16 PM
                                17 responses
                                144 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post seanD
                                by seanD
                                 
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 11:32 AM
                                16 responses
                                93 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Cow Poke  
                                Started by Cow Poke, Yesterday, 10:50 AM
                                27 responses
                                144 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Thoughtful Monk  
                                Working...
                                X