5 ms·

> Following laws is considered ethical though If you're a deontologist, sure. Very few people are pure deontologists. There are all sorts of cases of cases w

> Following laws is considered ethical though If you're a deontologist, sure. Very few people are pure deontologists. There are all sorts of cases of cases where people would say the ethical thing to do is to not follow a law. And this doesn't even have to be because the law is "bad" per se; it can just happen that you're in a situation the law's framers did not consider or could not imagine. But quite apart from that, there is a wide swath of things that are _legal_ to do but that one should probably still not do. And that's fine. We don't want to criminalize all behavior we disagree with, even if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it. This idea lies at the center of US First Amendment jurisprudence, for example.

manigandham 8y ago
>> if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law because the government represents the people. Failure to do so means there's a problem with the political system, which is what I said in my original comment.
- jakelazaroff 8y ago
  This is not how the law works (or should work). For example, cutting in line is not illegal, despite the fact that people almost universally disagree with it. This isn't a failure of our political system: the social pressure to follow the norm works great, and we don't think people deserve to be put in jail for it. Law is a tool to enforce societal norms — but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily the best one.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  > If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law That depends. This is why we have things like constitutions and constitutional courts, to prevent certain things from becoming law even if an overwhelming majority thinks they should. Of course if you're talking something like 99% majority, I agree. But even a 70% majority, which would generally be considered overwhekming, may not be enough today, in the US, to enact a constitutional amendment. You seem to consider this a bug. I consider this a feature. But past that, there are things that overwhelming majorities disagree with _doing_ but still don't think should be criminalized. Again, First Amendment jurisprudence is full of examples.

manigandham 8y ago

>> if an overwhelming majority disagrees with it If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law because the government represents the people. Failure to do so means there's a problem with the political system, which is what I said in my original comment.

jakelazaroff 8y ago
This is not how the law works (or should work). For example, cutting in line is not illegal, despite the fact that people almost universally disagree with it. This isn't a failure of our political system: the social pressure to follow the norm works great, and we don't think people deserve to be put in jail for it. Law is a tool to enforce societal norms — but it's not the only one, nor is it necessarily the best one.
bzbarsky 8y ago
> If an overwhelming majority disagrees then it becomes law That depends. This is why we have things like constitutions and constitutional courts, to prevent certain things from becoming law even if an overwhelming majority thinks they should. Of course if you're talking something like 99% majority, I agree. But even a 70% majority, which would generally be considered overwhekming, may not be enough today, in the US, to enact a constitutional amendment. You seem to consider this a bug. I consider this a feature. But past that, there are things that overwhelming majorities disagree with _doing_ but still don't think should be criminalized. Again, First Amendment jurisprudence is full of examples.