3 ms·

One must take responsibility for one’s morals. Our given set of societal/legal norms impart a certain level of responsibility. Because of the law, one must be

by vxxzy 8y ago

One must take responsibility for one’s morals. Our given set of societal/legal norms impart a certain level of responsibility. Because of the law, one must be responsible whether one likes it or not. The individual sits at the mercy of the society in which the individual exists. I suppose the only recourse for the individual is to help change society (this is slow, and requires even more responsibility) OR move to a different society.

triplesec 8y ago
Upholding an ethical morality is not the same as following the law. The law frequently does not follow the values or mores of the people themselves. And often even if it is close it lags behind in time and it is only the actions of people contrary to the law which changes it. So, I believe that your claims are unsound. Indeed it is irresponsible to follow an unjust law comma because then you will just be reinforcing injustices. See the American civil rights movement for good examples of this.
- vxxzy 8y ago
  morals != laws. Re-read and you will see no association made in the grammar. Words tend to reflect back the ideas and beliefs of the reader.
  - triplesec 8y ago
    it appears to be the same thing in your comment, because you say that because there is a law people have a responsibility. And that responsibility to the law becomes a moral responsibility according to the way I have read what you say that makes sense as a response to the original comment. If you would like to explain it some another way then please do!
    - vxxzy 8y ago
      The law forces one be responsible (without choice). If a law is passed to “kick the leakers”, then if one leaks, they will be held responsible by having a good kicking for not bearing the responsibility of upholding the law. Morally, the individual is opposed to the law. Fine. Great. Even without the law, one is still responsible for their morals. Maybe the society doesn’t “kick” people, maybe society supports leakers. Doesn’t matter. There have been countless individuals acting “morally” (in their view), and we as a society have held them responsible. One should balance one’s actions against their morals, and society’s law.
      - danShumway 8y ago
        Well there's the conflict then. Many people believe that morals are more important than the law, not the other way around. And really, what you're talking about is a balance. Very few people actually believe that anyone has a total responsibility to always submit to punishments for laws. Nobody argues that people who helped slaves escape from their masters should have turned themselves into the state afterwards. Nobody argues that a North Korean dissonant should hang a sign on their door announcing their intentions to defect. Nobody argues that before the Boston Tea Party everyone involved should have said, "well there's no need for these disguises, the point will be the same regardless of whether we go to jail afterwards." And of course in the opposite direction, nobody argues, "well, you had a good reason for running that red light, so it's perfectly reasonable to run from the police when they try to pull you over." What you're really arguing is that leaks about a company's immoral behavior don't cross the line where people have a right to defend themselves from having their lives ruined. The reason GP disagrees with you isn't because they don't understand that orderly societies require laws. It's because they think it does cross that line. Personally, I trend towards agreeing with them. It is very easy to tell other people that they should just buck up and accept unjust consequences as a result of helping me. The reality is I (and society as a whole) benefit a lot from whistleblowers. Given that whistleblowing is already a very dangerous process, it's not clear to me why it's in my best interest to heap additional social condemnation on top of that.
- quotemstr 8y ago
  We can't have a society if disagreement with the law frees one from the consequences of failing to obey it.
lordnacho 8y ago
> I suppose the only recourse for the individual is to help change society (this is slow, and requires even more responsibility) OR move to a different society. Neither of these things is reasonable. Am I supposed to start an election campaign if I don't like the law? Am I supposed to move my whole life elsewhere? No, undermining the powers that be -in this case by leaking- is the right thing to do.
- vxxzy 8y ago
  No. But stating the Delimma allows us to talk about how to solve it.
ethbro 8y ago
I think there are a few omissions here. 1. There are three (not two) choices in modern life: follow the law, break the law, break the law with anonymity. The last still carries risk, but not nearly with the certainty of the second. 2. Between this and your replies downthread, we have to be clear that "society" consists of three parts: government, citizens, and capital (aka corporations). All of these influence the creation and enforcement of laws. Because of the last, I would assert that in modern capitalist democracies, it is possible to break the law yet be in complete moral alignment with the citizens of your society. An example would have been the original protests against the Tea Act of 1773.
evrydayhustling 8y ago
Breaking a rule can involve many things at once: bravery in adhering to your moral code, cowardice in avoiding alternative paths, disrespect for your commitments to a society or team, empathy for people your society or team is harming. Leakers must weigh these things against each other and so must anyone looking at them - even if they weigh those things differently. Believing either (a) that people should hold the law abover their own values, or (b) that people should only be judged on adherence to their own code, are not ways out of the conundrum - they're just a particular set of values.

by vxxzy 8y ago

triplesec 8y ago

Upholding an ethical morality is not the same as following the law. The law frequently does not follow the values or mores of the people themselves. And often even if it is close it lags behind in time and it is only the actions of people contrary to the law which changes it. So, I believe that your claims are unsound. Indeed it is irresponsible to follow an unjust law comma because then you will just be reinforcing injustices. See the American civil rights movement for good examples of this.

vxxzy 8y ago
morals != laws. Re-read and you will see no association made in the grammar. Words tend to reflect back the ideas and beliefs of the reader.
- triplesec 8y ago
  it appears to be the same thing in your comment, because you say that because there is a law people have a responsibility. And that responsibility to the law becomes a moral responsibility according to the way I have read what you say that makes sense as a response to the original comment. If you would like to explain it some another way then please do!
  - vxxzy 8y ago
    The law forces one be responsible (without choice). If a law is passed to “kick the leakers”, then if one leaks, they will be held responsible by having a good kicking for not bearing the responsibility of upholding the law. Morally, the individual is opposed to the law. Fine. Great. Even without the law, one is still responsible for their morals. Maybe the society doesn’t “kick” people, maybe society supports leakers. Doesn’t matter. There have been countless individuals acting “morally” (in their view), and we as a society have held them responsible. One should balance one’s actions against their morals, and society’s law.
    - danShumway 8y ago
      Well there's the conflict then. Many people believe that morals are more important than the law, not the other way around. And really, what you're talking about is a balance. Very few people actually believe that anyone has a total responsibility to always submit to punishments for laws. Nobody argues that people who helped slaves escape from their masters should have turned themselves into the state afterwards. Nobody argues that a North Korean dissonant should hang a sign on their door announcing their intentions to defect. Nobody argues that before the Boston Tea Party everyone involved should have said, "well there's no need for these disguises, the point will be the same regardless of whether we go to jail afterwards." And of course in the opposite direction, nobody argues, "well, you had a good reason for running that red light, so it's perfectly reasonable to run from the police when they try to pull you over." What you're really arguing is that leaks about a company's immoral behavior don't cross the line where people have a right to defend themselves from having their lives ruined. The reason GP disagrees with you isn't because they don't understand that orderly societies require laws. It's because they think it does cross that line. Personally, I trend towards agreeing with them. It is very easy to tell other people that they should just buck up and accept unjust consequences as a result of helping me. The reality is I (and society as a whole) benefit a lot from whistleblowers. Given that whistleblowing is already a very dangerous process, it's not clear to me why it's in my best interest to heap additional social condemnation on top of that.
quotemstr 8y ago
We can't have a society if disagreement with the law frees one from the consequences of failing to obey it.

lordnacho 8y ago

> I suppose the only recourse for the individual is to help change society (this is slow, and requires even more responsibility) OR move to a different society. Neither of these things is reasonable. Am I supposed to start an election campaign if I don't like the law? Am I supposed to move my whole life elsewhere? No, undermining the powers that be -in this case by leaking- is the right thing to do.

vxxzy 8y ago
No. But stating the Delimma allows us to talk about how to solve it.

ethbro 8y ago

I think there are a few omissions here. 1. There are three (not two) choices in modern life: follow the law, break the law, break the law with anonymity. The last still carries risk, but not nearly with the certainty of the second. 2. Between this and your replies downthread, we have to be clear that "society" consists of three parts: government, citizens, and capital (aka corporations). All of these influence the creation and enforcement of laws. Because of the last, I would assert that in modern capitalist democracies, it is possible to break the law yet be in complete moral alignment with the citizens of your society. An example would have been the original protests against the Tea Act of 1773.

evrydayhustling 8y ago

Breaking a rule can involve many things at once: bravery in adhering to your moral code, cowardice in avoiding alternative paths, disrespect for your commitments to a society or team, empathy for people your society or team is harming. Leakers must weigh these things against each other and so must anyone looking at them - even if they weigh those things differently. Believing either (a) that people should hold the law abover their own values, or (b) that people should only be judged on adherence to their own code, are not ways out of the conundrum - they're just a particular set of values.