• 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.

What's more important, your nation's laws or your philosophy?

jay gw

Unregistered
J
Joined
Sep 11, 2004
Messages
1,821
The customs/culture of one's country and it's laws are never in sync with personal beliefs. There are always areas of disagreement and disharmony.

If very serious conflicts between your country's policies or culture and your philosophy or religious values/ideals developed, would you renounce your citizenship? Why or why not? If not, would you take any steps at all to reconcile or protest?

What kind of conflict would force you to seriously consider and act to renounce your citizenship or take other drastic actions?

Many religious people say their primary loyalties are to their church and religion, not the laws or customs of their country. Most fundamentalists believe this to be true. But it's not limited to them.

In general, what's more important to you: your philosophy or religion, or loyalty to your country?
 
Your "poll" is flawed because the issue is not "either / or." Some of "my" nation's laws are more important than any philosophy I might hold to; other laws of "my" nation are revolting, demonic, evil, repulsive, cruel, and to be opposed with one's every breath and thought and deed.

The correct answer, for every human being on the planet, is "Sometimes the former; sometimes the latter." Only a pychopath would choose one or the other.
 
Desertphile said:
Your "poll" is flawed because the issue is not "either / or." Some of "my" nation's laws are more important than any philosophy I might hold to; other laws of "my" nation are revolting, demonic, evil, repulsive, cruel, and to be opposed with one's every breath and thought and deed.

The correct answer, for every human being on the planet, is "Sometimes the former; sometimes the latter." Only a pychopath would choose one or the other.
Click to expand...

The problem with Jay is he seems very much one who thinks in 'black and white' modes.

I agree, DP - Some laws are more important than personal philosophies, others are not. And that varies, as it should, from person to person. What is best for one is not necessarily best for all, and what is best for the masses is not necessarily what is best for the individual.

This is why most forms of government struggle so hard: because of the natural dichotomy of personal interests vs. group interests.
 
Even with the 'in general' proviso, the same internal moral assessment that would motivate me to obey laws, is going to be the thing that drives me to break them, should I find myself in that position.


So what is 'important to me' doesn't neatly fall into either of the categories that Jaygw offers.
 
zaayrdragon said:
The problem with Jay is he seems very much one who thinks in 'black and white' modes.

I agree, DP - Some laws are more important than personal philosophies, others are not. And that varies, as it should, from person to person. What is best for one is not necessarily best for all, and what is best for the masses is not necessarily what is best for the individual.

This is why most forms of government struggle so hard: because of the natural dichotomy of personal interests vs. group interests.
Click to expand...
Beat me to it. Both of you. It's a false dichotomy.
 
Of course. More people are going to answer without considering than will consider and not answer. That's simple folk psychology. Present the average joe with a falsely dichotomous choice, and most are going to blindly take one or the other choice without thinking it out.
 
There's really no contention. Don't the fetters of conventional 'law' feel archaic? (Speaking as a decadent libertine, I utterly detest certain infringements on freedom - or attempted restrictions, at least.)

jay gw said:
[...] would you renounce your citizenship?
Click to expand...
I've never cared for it at all. When asked "Where are you from?" I've always responded with "The world". (I suspect most of you will catch the reference.)

I find patriotism and the reification of custom utterly incomprehensible.. - Thus, I'd forsake this particular protrusion of earth rather nonchalantly, were it in accordance with egoism. (And that could be spurred by any number of trivial things.)

Even if the law and my philosophies became synonymous, the fact I'd previously arrived at the conclusions myself would be of far greater importance to me. (Loyalty ensnared by reason, not authority.)

I'm reminded of a particular question posed to theists: "Does god love x because it's good, or is x good because god loves it?" - You know the repercussions. ;)

Desertphile said:
Only a pychopath would choose one or the other.
Click to expand...
Well, I have always been fond of the term..
 
jay gw said:
In general, what's more important to you: your philosophy or religion, or loyalty to your country?
Click to expand...
If you have no philosopy, you are just a "serf" to the system. Which is just as those who are in control of the system would assume have it. ;)
 
It's not a false dichotomy. Lots of people through history have had to make the choice to follow their values and oppose their government or to go along with it.

Ever hear of slavery? Nazis? Communism? Jesus Christ? Puritans? the IRA?

There's nothing false about those.
 
Your original question presents 2 choices, and falsely presumes that they are the only choices.

Why are you wasting time with this tripe ?
 
RandFan said:
Beat me to it. Both of you. It's a false dichotomy.
Click to expand...

My un-God you people are picky! You know what is meant by the question:

When, in the course of human events, your personal philosophy recommends an action at odds with the laws of your society, which do you generally choose?

Personally, I will be civilly disobedient, and do what I feel is right the majority of the time. I disobey the law almost every day (and I'm not talking about speeding here).

Voting is not some paper activity you do every two years (hopefully you do so if you live in the US). Everytime you act in society, you are voting because you are influencing society, and therefore the government. The day when you let the government decide what is right and wrong and control your actions is the day democracy dies. Because when that happens, the government is controlling the people, and that is not democracy, it's authoritarianism.

*However* - you should be willing to accept the consequences that society puts upon you. If I break the law, and are arrested and convicted, I am willing to go to jail.
 
jay gw said:
It's not a false dichotomy. Lots of people through history have had to make the choice to follow their values and oppose their government or to go along with it.

Ever hear of slavery? Nazis? Communism? Jesus Christ? Puritans? the IRA?

There's nothing false about those.
Click to expand...
Those are specific instances. I could make such a decision about those. To answer your question I would need a specific. There are times I would choose my philosophy and there are times I would choose law.

For instance, depending on the law I might choose not to follow the law if it violated what I believe was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. But I am really not sure because I respect the law.

It depends. Your question IS a false dichotomy.
 
Gestahl said:
When, in the course of human events, your personal philosophy recommends an action at odds with the laws of your society, which do you generally choose?
Click to expand...
A very difficult question to answer. I subscribe to the notion that "we are a nation of laws and not of men". On the other hand I believe that blind allegiance to the law can be very problematic.

There is simply no easy answer. It depends. That is a sincere an honest answer. I'm sorry if you can't accept it.
 
Do any of you wonder about how fundamentalist Christians/Muslims etc. feel about the issue?

I'm sure they sit around talking about false dichotomies. Yes, I'm certain of it.
 
They probably have more time to talk about it, because they aren't constantly being spammed by your time wasting trollage.
 
RandFan said:
A very difficult question to answer. I subscribe to the notion that "we are a nation of laws and not of men". On the other hand I believe that blind allegiance to the law can be very problematic.

There is simply no easy answer. It depends. That is a sincere an honest answer. I'm sorry if you can't accept it.
Click to expand...

Again and again I agree with you.
Are you my long-lost twin? ;)

Dave
 
jay gw said:
Do any of you wonder about how fundamentalist Christians/Muslims etc. feel about the issue?

I'm sure they sit around talking about false dichotomies. Yes, I'm certain of it.
Click to expand...
Is this what passes for argument to you? I have honestly told you that you have asked a question that I can't logically answer "yes" or "no" to. What Muslims may or may not do is entirely besides the point.
  • There are times when my philosophy is more important.
  • There are times when the law is more important.
I have given you a good example to explain my position. Now, is there something about my answer that you do not understand?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom