3 ms·

Is the right course of action to break "unjust" laws, or to just fight to change them? This is an opinion, but I argue that every person has a different definit

Is the right course of action to break "unjust" laws, or to just fight to change them? This is an opinion, but I argue that every person has a different definition of what is "just", and if everyone followed their definition of "just", than our legal system would break down. Society functions on a set of laws, but those laws can change for the better.

wolfgke 11y ago
I mean "good" in the sense of the values that you honor - and here indeed you can't be good and lawful at the same time (except "being lawful" is your exact definition of good). I personally believe that the way to go is to turn ethics from a humanity into an empirical science, so that any "false" (in a sense that future people will have to define formally) can indeed be falsified. This would at least solve many problems. But at the moment this all is rather science-fiction, since we don't even understand how our brains works (which such theories will probably have to incorporate as special case).
andrei_says_ 11y ago
Unfortunately studies show that lawmaking in the U.S. does not reflect public opinion and interests except for the top % of richest people. In the face of this reality, direct action exposing publicly funded papers to the public kind of makes sense. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 "A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time." On the other hand: When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it. They conclude: Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
The US was founded after war. That is going far above and beyond merely breaking unjust laws. Working within the system is preferable as long as it remains an option, but for many it has closed off. So they switch to breaking unjust laws instead. Be wary of what follows if that option is removed.
ionised 11y ago
Fighting to change the system from within that system is much, much less effective than massie civil disobedience of that system. In fact it seems completely ineffectual to me most of the time. I'm on the 'break unjust laws' side of the argument, as have been many of the greatest civil rights figures in history. Break the unjust laws and convince as many people as you can to break them as well.

wolfgke 11y ago

I mean "good" in the sense of the values that you honor - and here indeed you can't be good and lawful at the same time (except "being lawful" is your exact definition of good). I personally believe that the way to go is to turn ethics from a humanity into an empirical science, so that any "false" (in a sense that future people will have to define formally) can indeed be falsified. This would at least solve many problems. But at the moment this all is rather science-fiction, since we don't even understand how our brains works (which such theories will probably have to incorporate as special case).

andrei_says_ 11y ago

Unfortunately studies show that lawmaking in the U.S. does not reflect public opinion and interests except for the top % of richest people. In the face of this reality, direct action exposing publicly funded papers to the public kind of makes sense. http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746 "A proposed policy change with low support among economically elite Americans (one-out-of-five in favour) is adopted only about 18% of the time," they write, "while a proposed change with high support (four-out-of-five in favour) is adopted about 45% of the time." On the other hand: When a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites and/or with organised interests, they generally lose. Moreover, because of the strong status quo bias built into the US political system, even when fairly large majorities of Americans favour policy change, they generally do not get it. They conclude: Americans do enjoy many features central to democratic governance, such as regular elections, freedom of speech and association and a widespread (if still contested) franchise. But we believe that if policymaking is dominated by powerful business organisations and a small number of affluent Americans, then America's claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

The US was founded after war. That is going far above and beyond merely breaking unjust laws. Working within the system is preferable as long as it remains an option, but for many it has closed off. So they switch to breaking unjust laws instead. Be wary of what follows if that option is removed.

ionised 11y ago

Fighting to change the system from within that system is much, much less effective than massie civil disobedience of that system. In fact it seems completely ineffectual to me most of the time. I'm on the 'break unjust laws' side of the argument, as have been many of the greatest civil rights figures in history. Break the unjust laws and convince as many people as you can to break them as well.