It's a useful shorthand when you don't feel like bringing moral ambiguity into the discussion. This whole thread is predicated on the fantasy that there is some sort of absolute morality, or at least a somewhat sensible relative morality.
Immoral to violate an immoral law?
- Thread starter Hercules56
- Start date
Yes, I didn't say otherwise. I said a light sentence, which can be according to guidelines.
I am not your monkey.
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena, Pronouns: he/him
And neither are you, as far as I know, a lawyer or someone who has studied law, which is the only kind of person who could answer theprestige's question and he knows it.
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
I think the question "is it immoral to violate an immoral law?" commits a category error. Law is the field of organizing human relations as an orderly collective -- it's the rules to keep the social contract operational. Morality is the field of humans attempting to develop and abide by principles of good vs evil. Intersection can occur because humans naturally want to try to make their social contract a fair one and their collective generally good, but that's neither inherent nor required. Sometimes indeed it goes the other way, and the individual must choose between being a good citizen (according to their interpretation of the law) or being a good person (according to their interpretation of morality). Conflicts arise, and can be distressing to the sensitive.
Personally I am deeply suspicious of people who conflate legality with morality because they are either maniacs lusting to impose their own personal (and generally wacky) ideas of morality upon everyone else using the force of the state, or even worse they are people who have no morality of their own and instead attempt to deify the state and make obedience to the law the only good.
Personally I am deeply suspicious of people who conflate legality with morality because they are either maniacs lusting to impose their own personal (and generally wacky) ideas of morality upon everyone else using the force of the state, or even worse they are people who have no morality of their own and instead attempt to deify the state and make obedience to the law the only good.
Chanakya
,
- Joined
- Apr 29, 2015
- Messages
- 5,811
Not?
(Regardless of whether we, observers that is to say, agree with the morality on which the laws are based, or agree with law-breaker's own more iconoclastic morality?)
Did you mean something different than this? Because this answer seems self-evident, as others have pointed out already.
Last edited:
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
Even if gods were real that wouldn't be the case: humans might have to accept the dictates of gods as to what is good and evil, but that would only be because the gods would have the power to compel us to, or face their wrath. Might doesn't make right in any mature morality, and that includes gods wielding their divine powers. All those rapes Zeus did weren't rendered okay just because he could smite his critics with lightning.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
This is a usual problem with civil disobedience and one Thoreau tried with at least a little success to sort out, despite an unnecessarily theistic starting point and arguable real life implementation (and likely more words than were really necessary). The basic issue is not whether the law is immoral, but whether it requires a person to behave immorally. Different people will draw that line a bit differently, but limiting your options does not necessarily compel you to transgress your moral code (think various prohibitions, for example. You can make a good argument for allowing consumption of certain substances, but it's no sin to be a teetotaller or a vegan) nor does permitting actions you consider sinful (gay marriage, abortion, etc.). Legality and morality are indeed separate, but insofar as they both involve what one does with one's life, they sometimes overlap. There are, of course, laws which can compel you to do things you cannot abide, but also gray areas where the boundary between participation and support blurs: slavery, genocide and so forth. Open and explicit civil disobedience has a long and honorable history.
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2016
- Messages
- 29,816
There are many studies showing that laws that are perceived to be unfair or disproportionate, in wording or application or both, actually undermine the faith in the Rule of Law instead of strengthening it.
Most obvious is this when it comes to Fines, where transgressions are often seen as The Cost of Doing Business rather than a violation of Laws, creating a 2-tier legal system between those who can and can't afford to break the law, purely financially.
It's even worse when it's big companies paying a nominal fine for causing egregious harm to the society at large, inviting them to continue their harmful business practices.
Most obvious is this when it comes to Fines, where transgressions are often seen as The Cost of Doing Business rather than a violation of Laws, creating a 2-tier legal system between those who can and can't afford to break the law, purely financially.
It's even worse when it's big companies paying a nominal fine for causing egregious harm to the society at large, inviting them to continue their harmful business practices.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
There are definitely victims in insurance fraud. Some direct, others indirect.
That and folks with a love of trivia. Australia, like almost everywhere else, almost certainly has some outdated laws. Most of those in most places are mostly forgotten because nobody has an interest in enforcing them. Cops, prosecutors, nobody wants to arrest people for spitting on the sidewalk on the second Sunday of August.
Thanks to the internet, its also pretty trivial to find lists of trivia.
Immoral is probably harder to find but it wouldn't surprise me if there were some anti-sodomy laws still on the books somewhere in Australia and they probably hadn't been enforced in decades and the last time was probably ruled over by an annoyed judge pissed at some cop who forced him to stand on such a case.
bruto
Penultimate Amazing
Getting too deep into those trivial back alleys of the law threatens to make the whole issue trivial, I think. There really are situations where law and principle collide, which entail real and often painful choices. Defying an abandoned blue law is not one of those, and has no moral content worth talking about.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Australia has mandatory minimum sentences for some crimes. The judge isn't always allowed to hand out a light sentence.
That's what I said, in other words.
Thermal
August Member
With the caveat that immorality in general.tends to be more fun.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Counterpoint: Immorality tends to be more self-destructive and society-destructive, thinly masked by a brief moment of perverse enjoyment that brings no lasting happiness.
A solid meth habit is all kinds of fun, even as your teeth fall out, your life falls apart, all your friends and family turn their backs on you (if you haven't already turned your back on them), and you end up dying of exposure or overdose somewhere in the middle of your latest foray into "more fun" immorality.
Thermal
August Member
Immorality *can* be self destructive, overindulgence and all that. But surely we can be immoral and still retain the calculus of maintaining our health and it's long term effects?
catsmate
No longer the 1
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2007
- Messages
- 34,767
Oh yes, "Do what thou wilt" and all that.
I'm starting to suspect that your concept of morality is just socially acceptable behavior and financial success.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Immorality is destructive by definition. If it were healthy for you, it wouldn't be immoral. "It's more fun to violate your principles" isn't really a coherent position.