It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

I Don't Care About The Law

page: 2
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: enlightenedservant

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.



The two are consistent. The legality of something is no argument. Beyond a simple non-aggression principle, it's arbitrary. Beyond that, you have to try to work things out yourself. That takes thought, and not simple obedience to law.


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?


Beyond a simple non-aggression principle, human choice is individual, and shouldn't be governed by some central authority.




posted on May, 31 2015 @ 08:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
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.


Ah interesting. Thanks for the reference. I suppose that would be about what I'm talking about. I don't believe in arbitrary imposition of artificial standards onto people. I don't know how absolute I want to be, but that's basically the principle.
edit on 31-5-2015 by TheJourney because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 31 2015 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheJourney
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.


amen.

What is "wrong" and what is "not legal" aren't the same- so what's the point?

My own morality is my guide- but it's taken with a heavy pinch of the law, since law enforcement is above the law and can execute me at will.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   
a reply to: TheJourney

Very well said... I too despise the concept of "law", it's 2am and you are stuck in a red light... Law says you cannot pass.
Law is telling you how to live, whom can take money from you legally, but what is law? Why people are giving so much importance to dead ideas.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:37 AM
link   

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 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.



i would like to point out that animals have no "law", yet they act more civil than us. they do not kill, but out of necessity, of course there are unusual individuals in every species.



posted on Jun, 3 2015 @ 11:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: lordcomac

amen.

What is "wrong" and what is "not legal" aren't the same- so what's the point?

My own morality is my guide- but it's taken with a heavy pinch of the law, since law enforcement is above the law and can execute me at will.


i think this is what TPTB were gunning for all along. control by fear.
edit on 3-6-2015 by fixitwcw because: syntax




top topics
 
9
<< 1   >>

log in

join