I Don't Care About The Law

Honestly. The law is a silly concept to me. I literally don't care about it whatsoever. It doesn't even enter into my thought processes. Nothing could be more arbitrary. If you think about the range of what has been legal, illegal, and legally mandated, in different places throughout time, the idea that law holds any weight whatsoever is ridiculous. I find it humorous when people say 'but he broke the law!' like that means anything. Let's judge an action on its own merit, who cares what the law says. The law is different elsewhere, is the ethical standing of the exact same action different elsewhere? No. Hence why the law is meaningless.

If your only argument against something is 'it's illegal,' you don't have an argument. That is all. Get your minds of this almost hypnotic worship of authority. Learn to think critically, and evaluate things on their own merit. If you use the law as your moral compass, then you have no moral compass, as a simple change of location changes everything.

originally posted by: TheJourney
If your only argument against something is 'it's illegal,' you don't have an argument. That is all. Get your minds of this hypnotic worship of authority. Learn to think critically, and evaluate things on their own merit

That is mostly the response I get when talking to people who are against cannabis. Most have no clue about it other than 'it's illegal'. lol That is their argument. No if's, no buts. Just, it's illegal.

Right just because somebody or a group of somebody's say something is wrong is it really wrong? Most laws are created because somebody didn't like something or want something to go they're way..

a reply to: TheJourney

Just because you fail to see the merit for a law, the state or country you live in has no such problem.

There may be some truth in your argument, and while you are incarcerated for failure to recognize a "silly" law I will support your ability to protest.

a reply to: TheJourney

I sort of agree with you, but on the other hand, I don't. Yes, Law is a ridiculous concept considering that morality is what we should really be striving for. However, humans tend to need rules and regulations in order to hold on to order itself.

I don't think the age of consent for sex and marriage should be 12, but The Vatican does. Opinion is individualistic and subjective. So we have to, as a group, decide what is appropriate and what isn't. In order for us to do this we set up government regulation, and thus law was born.

However, our current system is severely flawed. The actions of one often punishes everyone as a whole. And illogical, agenda-based people are in charge as to what laws are in place and what aren't.

We still need laws for a functional society. We just need a better way to form and regulate them.

Sure. That's fine. Then you would have no problem with society refuting laws on homicide, theft, assault and battery, etc. So if you are mugged or killed we can say, "Too bad. There's no law against it." And how about laws protecting your medical records? What the hey. They don't matter. And while you're at it, let the government spy on you with no restraints.

And while we're at it, since we just fired all the cops because they have nothing to do, why not eliminate fire departments, too? If you are stupid enough to get your house burned down, why should anyone be obligated to risk their lives trying to save it?

It's your problem. Drill, baby, drill!

My point isn't necessarily against the potential utility of law and its enforcement, in relation to clear-cut examples of immoral behavior and neglect of the non-aggression principle, but instead that 'the law' itself is meaningless as a principle to evaluate such things, and instead is only valuable insomuch as it is a reflection of such principles. In other words, actions do not become moral or immoral due to their legal status. They are moral or immoral in their own right, irrespective of legal status. And a law is only legitimate to the degree it is a reflection of good sense, and it is illegitimate to the degree that it is not. The rightness of an act is absolutely independent of its legality, absolutely unchanged. The law, therefore, is meaningless as something to appeal...only the case which can be made for or against it matters...
Except where yea, you regulate the context of your actions to avoid prosecution, only for the sake of the self-interest of avoiding illegitimate prosecution...not because of any rightness of avoiding such an action.

a reply to: TheJourney

Without laws you have Anarchy. I don't think anyone here would like to live in a world where if someone gets ticked off at someone, they just pull out a gun and bang your dead. No big deal. Or how about just holding someone up with a gun and taking their money and property? Too bad, they should have been carrying a gun. How about molesting kids or raping women on a whim? Oh that's OK you just raped my daughter or molested my kid. How about walking into stores and just helping yourself to anything on the shelves? Nobody would want to manufacture let alone own a business!!! It would basically be every man and women for themselves.

Really? That's the type of world you want to live in? Sure, there are laws on the books that shouldn't even be there, but that's because the majority of citizens don't protest against laws that are unjust.

The problem is us humans are not angels. We're easily tempted to do bad things. We haven't even progressed to the point of being called a real "civilized society". Civilized societies respect their fellow man. They don't buy into the war thing, yet this world lives by it.

If we didn't have laws, we would easily be ruled by organized crime and street gangs. Nope, I surely wouldn't want any part of it.

I only recognize 'laws' that protect person and property. All other laws are arbitrary.

People are consistently missing the point. Murder is wrong, because it is wrong. It's legal status has nothing to do with it's morality. Similarly, an action which is not wrong does not become wrong by it's being made illegal. I'm not arguing against the law itself, but arguing that the legal status of a given action is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong, and that whether it is right or wrong is what actually matters.

originally posted by: TheJourney
People are consistently missing the point. Murder is wrong, because it is wrong. It's legal status has nothing to do with it's morality. Similarly, an action which is not wrong does not become wrong by it's being made illegal. I'm not arguing against the law itself, but arguing that the legal status of a given action is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong, and that whether it is right or wrong is what actually matters.

I really didn't want to comment on this thread however the "Murder is wrong, beacuse it is wrong" rather points out the absurdity of this whole discussion.

How do you know that murder is wrong if not for thousands of years of law saying that it's wrong.

If you use a religious justification for 'murder is wrong' you are in error becuase religious texts say 'killing' is wrong. A very different thing then 'murder'.

Your conscious tells you it is wrong - that is valid - but also the effect of years of conditioning because of - yes 'law'.

Law is the collective morals/ethics of a people - a nation for example. (And current US law and practise speaks very poorly to our collective morality). And as a member of nation you have redress, as an earlier poster noted, if you disagree with a law - but are MORALLY bound by that law.

There are morally reprhensible laws (see Nazi Germany) and laws are truly the will of the wealthy and powerfully but they trully are a reflection of the society.

If you want to talk about morality and ethics - tell me that you follow the laws of the land where you are and then we can talk about the morality of law.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TheJourney
People are consistently missing the point. Murder is wrong, because it is wrong. It's legal status has nothing to do with it's morality. Similarly, an action which is not wrong does not become wrong by it's being made illegal. I'm not arguing against the law itself, but arguing that the legal status of a given action is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong, and that whether it is right or wrong is what actually matters.

I really didn't want to comment on this thread however the "Murder is wrong, beacuse it is wrong" rather points out the absurdity of this whole discussion.

How do you know that murder is wrong if not for thousands of years of law saying that it's wrong.
....
If you want to talk about morality and ethics - tell me that you follow the laws of the land where you are and then we can talk about the morality of law.

So you only think murder is wrong because of the law? And it weren't for the law, you wouldn't know murder was wrong? That is sad. Like people who say they would have no idea about morality if it weren't for their religious text. Sad indeed.

And you believe that morality is relative to the laws of the time and place? Also sad.

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TheJourney
People are consistently missing the point. Murder is wrong, because it is wrong. It's legal status has nothing to do with it's morality. Similarly, an action which is not wrong does not become wrong by it's being made illegal. I'm not arguing against the law itself, but arguing that the legal status of a given action is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong, and that whether it is right or wrong is what actually matters.

I really didn't want to comment on this thread however the "Murder is wrong, beacuse it is wrong" rather points out the absurdity of this whole discussion.

How do you know that murder is wrong if not for thousands of years of law saying that it's wrong.
....
If you want to talk about morality and ethics - tell me that you follow the laws of the land where you are and then we can talk about the morality of law.

So you only think murder is wrong because of the law? And it weren't for the law, you wouldn't know murder was wrong? That is sad. Like people who say they would have no idea about morality if it weren't for their religious text. Sad indeed.

And you believe that morality is relative to the laws of the time and place? Also sad.

And I'm truly sorry you have to resort to a personal attack to respond to a valid flaw in your 'reasoning'.

originally posted by: TheJourney
People are consistently missing the point. Murder is wrong, because it is wrong. It's legal status has nothing to do with it's morality. Similarly, an action which is not wrong does not become wrong by it's being made illegal. I'm not arguing against the law itself, but arguing that the legal status of a given action is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong, and that whether it is right or wrong is what actually matters.

Huh? Then why is murder "wrong"? Because of "morals"? Whose morals? Yours? Or a specific religion?

Having a society run itself based on unwritten morals is a recipe for disaster. Some people have absolutely no problem with killing other people. Or acquiring something they want, regardless of who else saw it or claims it. I don't think property rights are "moral" unless the owner is living on that property or using it for productive purposes. So how would society deal with that without laws?

Also, many people think the concept of "fighting words" is valid & morally right. So should that unwritten rule be allowed or should there be laws allowing "freedom of speech"? Others believe the concept of "by any means necessary" is morally right, especially when trying to take care of family or trying to achieve one's dreams. So how would a society deal with half of its citizens living like that? The concept of laws is absolutely necessary for peace & stability.

Again: I'm not arguing against the existence of laws. I'm arguing that the law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rightness or wrongness. If I were legally bound to do something unethical, I would not do it. If I were legally restricted from doing something, I would disregard that law unless I agreef that it was in some way bad, and I would take precautions against getting caught. But something being illegal, does not make it wrong. And something being legally, or even a legal obligation, does not make it right.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TheJourney

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: TheJourney
People are consistently missing the point. Murder is wrong, because it is wrong. It's legal status has nothing to do with it's morality. Similarly, an action which is not wrong does not become wrong by it's being made illegal. I'm not arguing against the law itself, but arguing that the legal status of a given action is absolutely irrelevant to whether or not it is right or wrong, and that whether it is right or wrong is what actually matters.

I really didn't want to comment on this thread however the "Murder is wrong, beacuse it is wrong" rather points out the absurdity of this whole discussion.

How do you know that murder is wrong if not for thousands of years of law saying that it's wrong.
....
If you want to talk about morality and ethics - tell me that you follow the laws of the land where you are and then we can talk about the morality of law.

So you only think murder is wrong because of the law? And it weren't for the law, you wouldn't know murder was wrong? That is sad. Like people who say they would have no idea about morality if it weren't for their religious text. Sad indeed.

And you believe that morality is relative to the laws of the time and place? Also sad.

And I'm truly sorry you have to resort to a personal attack to respond to a valid flaw in your 'reasoning'.

It wasn't much of a personal attack. I'm assuming that you actually can figure out common sense morality without some higher authority telling you. But yes, if you, or anyone else, can't figure out that rape/torture/murder is wrong without some appeal to authority, that is indeed sad.

All the greatest travesties in human history were done within the confines of the law. The Jews were legally in the wrong in nazi germany. Legally, hitler was right, the Jews were wrong. But keep arguing that the law has any bearing on anything, keeping in mind that implication. I'll keep arguing the opposite, and determine that hitler was in the wrong, despite the legal framework. Since reality matters, not the law.

originally posted by: TheJourney
Again: I'm not arguing against the existence of laws. I'm arguing that the law has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with rightness or wrongness. If I were legally bound to do something unethical, I would not do it. If I were legally restricted from doing something, I would disregard that law unless I agreef that it was in some way bad, and I would take precautions against getting caught. But something being illegal, does not make it wrong. And something being legally, or even a legal obligation, does not make it right.

That's obvious though. That's the same "legal" vs "moral" argument people have been making for millennia. However, that's not what you were saying in the OP. In the OP you said:

The law is a silly concept to me. I literally don't care about it whatsoever. It doesn't even enter into my thought processes. Nothing could be more arbitrary.

So people responded to what you typed. Then you said:

Let's judge an action on its own merit, who cares what the law says.

How can we "judge an action on its own merit" without forming a consensus on its merit? Otherwise, everyone will have his or her own view of the merit of that action. You're making a massive assumption that everyone shares the same ethics or morals. But obviously humans have vastly different ideas on ethics and morals.

The ironic thing is you used the Hitler/Jews example as proof that "legal" is wrong. But from the late 1800s through WWII, virtually all of Europe, the US, Canada, and Australia thought eugenics and Social Darwinism was ethically correct. They believed culturally, religiously & scientifically that colored people around the world were inferior. The eugenics theory was that it was the "responsible" thing to do to weed out the social undersirables, be it through sterilization, refusing to allow them to procreate, or as a final solution, simply killing them off (look up the millions they killed in Africa decades before the Holocaust). Some people still believe this is the right thing to do.

So once again, whose morals & ethics are we talking about? It sounds like you're saying "laws are useless because the world should just follow my idea of ethics & morals". You say that it's common sense that murder is bad. But does that only include the murder of other humans? Because humans murder tens of millions of animals & insects everyday. Some cultures like India hold it morally wrong to kill animals like that, while others hunt & kill animals for sport. Which one is morally correct?

a reply to: TheJourney

So are you speaking about the difference between a law that is Mala in Se

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

and

Mala prohibita

legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...

Some crimes would be evil or wrong, (by most standards) even if no law existed to prohibit them. Rape would be a good example.

Crimes like disorderly intoxication are not necessarily evil in nature, but are illegal because a law was written in regards to it.

It is a commonly debated topic within criminal justice circles.