3 ms·

That's a very interesting way of slicing things. You think that the importance of the rule of law (obedience) isn't something which should be instilled at a you

That's a very interesting way of slicing things. You think that the importance of the rule of law (obedience) isn't something which should be instilled at a young age? It's totally possible to simultaneously teach that following and questioning the rules is possible/appropriate/good. Consider that the US military simultaneously teaches the importance of following orders and every soldier/sailor/airman/marines obligation to refuse illegal orders.

watwut 9y ago
Obedience shall depend on what the law is. Sometimes laws are immoral and then it is ok to break them. Which is not the same as breaking the law for profit. And even there, people who run away from soviet union broke the law. It was ok to do so in my opinion. People who were dissenters, owned printers and spread ... ehm ... evil capitalist propaganda broke the law too. It was heroic from them to do so. Likewise with breaking nazi laws. Likewise with marrying/dating between blacks and whites where it was illegal or helping slaves escape. I am ok with Snowden too.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago
> You think that the importance of the rule of law (obedience) isn't something which should be instilled at a young age? If you think that the rule of law is about obedience, I think you are completely missing the point. The whole point of the rule of law is to avoid arbitrariness in how the state treats people. You could maybe say that it is about obedience of sorts on the part of those people who work for the government, to only use their special powers in line with what the law says. But even then you have the option to resign from the job rather than to obey if you object to what the law says. While sometimes following rules while at the same time disagreeing with them is appropriate (and that also should be taught to kids), civil disobedience is also a very important factor in fighting injustice, in particular the kind of injustice that the state produces when it rules by unjust law. Given how much injustice in the world has happened essentially because of obedience to laws, I find it hard to believe anyone would consider obedience a virtue. Laws in general should be followed, but not because it's a virtue to follow laws, but because enlightened self-interest should inform you that a society that has clear rules that everyone is bound by has tons of benefits, because by respecting the rules in favour of others, you gain that others respect the rules in your favour. But whenever that balance is clearly violated, it should be everyone's first priority to disobey.
derefr 9y ago
Look into the concept of "common intent" that I linked. It gives you all the same things obedience does, but for much more sensible, egalitarian reasons. (And the military itself knows this; scroll further down on the same page to read about "Command intent"—which is sort of, 1. the planned incentivization that commanders and law-makers do, giving orders that will be misinterpreted and misapplied by people with conflicting preferences to give results they ultimately want, rather than giving orders that are "right" at first but which go wrong after a fifteen-layer game of hierarchical telephone; and 2. the knowledge that the orders you've been given are of this "robust under misinterpretation" type, and so knowing to not read too much about the original "Commander's intent" into them.) Teaching a child that following orders is good, but that disobeying "bad" orders is also good, is virtue ethics, and has all the same problems as virtue ethics: there's no clear test for which virtue wins when two virtues come into conflict. Common intent sets a much clearer standard: just understand the intent of the person giving the order—the "spirit of the law"—and then obey that, disobeying the letter of the law if-and-only-if it conflicts with the spirit of the law. This shakes out to obedience to good orders (or orders given by trusted commanders) but disobedience to bad orders (or orders given by untrusted commanders) ...except where a good law/trusted commander applies a meta-order to the effect of "please do me the favor of following the bad orders; it advances the spirit of the law in a hard-to-follow consequentialist way that you'll be able to see in retrospect." Which is pretty much what humans who we consider to have "character" already do intuitively, so it's (hopefully) a good thing to systematize.

watwut 9y ago

Obedience shall depend on what the law is. Sometimes laws are immoral and then it is ok to break them. Which is not the same as breaking the law for profit. And even there, people who run away from soviet union broke the law. It was ok to do so in my opinion. People who were dissenters, owned printers and spread ... ehm ... evil capitalist propaganda broke the law too. It was heroic from them to do so. Likewise with breaking nazi laws. Likewise with marrying/dating between blacks and whites where it was illegal or helping slaves escape. I am ok with Snowden too.

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 9y ago

> You think that the importance of the rule of law (obedience) isn't something which should be instilled at a young age? If you think that the rule of law is about obedience, I think you are completely missing the point. The whole point of the rule of law is to avoid arbitrariness in how the state treats people. You could maybe say that it is about obedience of sorts on the part of those people who work for the government, to only use their special powers in line with what the law says. But even then you have the option to resign from the job rather than to obey if you object to what the law says. While sometimes following rules while at the same time disagreeing with them is appropriate (and that also should be taught to kids), civil disobedience is also a very important factor in fighting injustice, in particular the kind of injustice that the state produces when it rules by unjust law. Given how much injustice in the world has happened essentially because of obedience to laws, I find it hard to believe anyone would consider obedience a virtue. Laws in general should be followed, but not because it's a virtue to follow laws, but because enlightened self-interest should inform you that a society that has clear rules that everyone is bound by has tons of benefits, because by respecting the rules in favour of others, you gain that others respect the rules in your favour. But whenever that balance is clearly violated, it should be everyone's first priority to disobey.

derefr 9y ago

Look into the concept of "common intent" that I linked. It gives you all the same things obedience does, but for much more sensible, egalitarian reasons. (And the military itself knows this; scroll further down on the same page to read about "Command intent"—which is sort of, 1. the planned incentivization that commanders and law-makers do, giving orders that will be misinterpreted and misapplied by people with conflicting preferences to give results they ultimately want, rather than giving orders that are "right" at first but which go wrong after a fifteen-layer game of hierarchical telephone; and 2. the knowledge that the orders you've been given are of this "robust under misinterpretation" type, and so knowing to not read too much about the original "Commander's intent" into them.) Teaching a child that following orders is good, but that disobeying "bad" orders is also good, is virtue ethics, and has all the same problems as virtue ethics: there's no clear test for which virtue wins when two virtues come into conflict. Common intent sets a much clearer standard: just understand the intent of the person giving the order—the "spirit of the law"—and then obey that, disobeying the letter of the law if-and-only-if it conflicts with the spirit of the law. This shakes out to obedience to good orders (or orders given by trusted commanders) but disobedience to bad orders (or orders given by untrusted commanders) ...except where a good law/trusted commander applies a meta-order to the effect of "please do me the favor of following the bad orders; it advances the spirit of the law in a hard-to-follow consequentialist way that you'll be able to see in retrospect." Which is pretty much what humans who we consider to have "character" already do intuitively, so it's (hopefully) a good thing to systematize.