• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Immoral to violate an immoral law?

Is it immoral to violate an immoral law?

  • Yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No

    Votes: 7 100.0%

  • Tom Cruise is a God

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    7
theprestige said:
My concept of morality is nothing like that.

I'm starting to suspect that your concept of immorality is just flouting society's rules.
Click to expand...
"Immorality is destructive by definition. If it were healthy for you, it wouldn't be immoral."

Rich with slaves and a harem meets your definition of moral. What else you got?
 
Olmstead said:
"Immorality is destructive by definition. If it were healthy for you, it wouldn't be immoral."

Rich with slaves and a harem meets your definition of moral.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't.

Olmstead said:
What else you got?
Click to expand...
I'm good. You're the one who's measuring moral health in terms of material possessions. You're the one failing to consider that there's more to what's good for you than whether you own slaves.
 
Last edited:
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
Killing competition for resources might be "healthy" for me personally, not so much for others, if you'll pardon the hyperbole. My concept of morality is often heavily entwined with the benefit of others.
 
theprestige said:
No. My position is the opposite.
Click to expand...
In other words, a wage slave working themselves to death out of some misguided sense of responsibility is immoral, while the scammer living a healthy and happy life is moral.

You can start coming up with refutations any time now. All these examples perfectly align with what you've said about morality.
 
Thermal said:
Killing competition for resources might be "healthy" for me personally, not so much for others, if you'll pardon the hyperbole. My concept of morality is often heavily entwined with the benefit of others.
Click to expand...
My point is that your morality is yours. You don't hold yourself to a moral standard because of all the fun you miss out on that way, but because of all the harm you avoid that way. Part of choosing a moral life is recognizing that temporary gratification isn't as fun as it looks.
 
theprestige said:
My point is that your morality is yours. You don't hold yourself to a moral standard because of all the fun you miss out on that way, but because of all the harm you avoid that way. Part of choosing a moral life is recognizing that temporary gratification isn't as fun as it looks.
Click to expand...
That's not morality. That's just choosing delayed gratification over instant gratification.

You're essentially saying that morality doesn't exist, but that you personally value people who successfully pursue long-term goals.
 
Last edited:
Olmstead said:
In other words, a wage slave working themselves to death out of some misguided sense of responsibility is immoral, while the scammer living a healthy and happy life is moral.

You can start coming up with refutations any time now. All these examples perfectly align with what you've said about morality.
Click to expand...
My position is that the scammer is not living a healthy life. Probably isn't living a happy life, either. Unless they're a sociopath or psychopath. Which means they're not living a healthy life. And I wonder if they're even living a happy life.

But let's stipulate. What's immoral about a scammer living a healthy and happy life, as you judge such things? What's immoral about scamming for a living? Other than flouting society's rules.
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
Whose immorality are we talking about here, and whose definition? There are many people who believe it is immoral to practice birth control others to let a menstruating woman eat at your table, others who are convinced that any number of other things that endanger your immortal soul are, inherently immoral, and....well you get the idea. We're talking here not about violating your principles, but violating those of others who have legal power. Sorry, but I think your response here is lazy.
 
This reminds me of Kant's Categorical Imperative. One of the implications Kant came too from this idea was that lying to some one was "always" wrong - no exceptions! I won't go into Kant's very unsatisfactory reasoning for this position except to note that Kant elevated obedience as the ultimate virtue and even argued that any joy or pleasure or just satisfaction in evening fulfilling the Categorical Imperative was wrong, bad etc.

Since Kant lived in an Absolute Monarchy his elevation of duty / obedience has the ultimate virtue should occasion no surprise.

So I suspect if not obeying an Immoral law involved breaking a Categorical Imperative Kant would say it was wrong to do so.
 
theprestige said:
My position is that the scammer is not living a healthy life. Probably isn't living a happy life, either. Unless they're a sociopath or psychopath. Which means they're not living a healthy life. And I wonder if they're even living a happy life.
Click to expand...
I didn't take you to be so naive. In fact, I don't think you are. I think you're just doubling down on your strange notion about morality.

Money will ensure that they are both healthy and happy, and you don't have to be a complete psychopath to be okay with a few lies here and there. The only thing that could keep them from being healthy and happy are societal consequences, but depending on the time and place, that danger can be negligible.

But if that last part is a deal breaker for some reason, we can still return to the rich slave owners, who were healthy, happy, and completely lawful.
theprestige said:
But let's stipulate. What's immoral about a scammer living a healthy and happy life, as you judge such things? What's immoral about scamming for a living? Other than flouting society's rules.
Click to expand...
Intentionally causing harm to another person for personal gain.
 
bruto said:
Whose immorality are we talking about here, and whose definition?
Click to expand...
Yours. You are the sole and supreme judge of what is right for you, and what is wrong.

bruto said:
There are many people who believe it is immoral to practice birth control others to let a menstruating woman eat at your table, others who are convinced that any number of other things that endanger your immortal soul are, inherently immoral, and....well you get the idea. We're talking here not about violating your principles, but violating those of others who have legal power. Sorry, but I think your response here is lazy.
Click to expand...
"Violating other people's moral codes is more fun than not" is a sociopathic claim. I'm not going to join forces with someone who means that.
 
I don't know who said violating other people's moral codes is more fun than not, or even what that quite means. But the subject of the thread was, I thought, the question of whether it is ever morally acceptable to violate laws, and you still do not seem to have made it clear where you stand on this. If I am the sole judge of my moral code, then what prevails if the law compels me to act against my conscience? Must we all march?
 
theprestige said:
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.
Click to expand...
No, ◊◊◊◊ that. You clearly have no idea why addiction is bad.

Addiction is where you go on with it despite it not being fun any more. Meth addiction sucks big time, and all the while the addict knows that it's destroying their life, hates it, and they can't stop.
 
I'd say it's never immoral to violate an immoral law. That doesn't mean there will not be consequences.

Those hiding Jews in WW2 were violating an immoral law. If they got caught there was punishment, often involving death.
Doctors helping women get an abortion in part of the US also do so out of morality. Yet they will be punished if caught.

But since morality is a personal thing, what one considers immoral the other considers moral.

Those attacking doctors working at an abortion clinic equally feel they are breaking an immoral law and are willing to take the consequences.
 
arthwollipot said:
No, ◊◊◊◊ that. You clearly have no idea why addiction is bad.

Addiction is where you go on with it despite it not being fun any more. Meth addiction sucks big time, and all the while the addict knows that it's destroying their life, hates it, and they can't stop.
Click to expand...
So much for immorality being more fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom