6 ms·

I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove onesel

I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. Not that I'm arguing one way or another how that applies in this situation, though.

TheCoelacanth 7y ago
Snowden did leave both the company and the country, though.
chrisdhoover 7y ago
There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.
- 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
  Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying? The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity. Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I disagree.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - tempestn 7y ago
    There's a difference between saying it's OK to flee repression, which I don't think anyone is disputing, and saying that given the option to flee, it's immoral to instead stay and practice civil disobedience, which was the claim made up thread.
    - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
      Thanks for clarifying. It seems I was wrong in my understanding.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  For many changing it might be more practical than leaving it. For some like many refugees the choice was leave or die.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  There is also the option of ignoring it (piracy vs IP laws) and subverting it (many communities refuse to work with cops and handle justice themselves). These are as illegal as civil disobedience (refusing to work with cops might be more legal in some countries). As to if they are more or less moral... what moral framework are we using to judge?
  - mcny 7y ago
    We all have our own moral compass. I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence (1776) was also unlawful as well...
    - SkyBelow 7y ago
      This leaves us at a problem. Legality seems far too poor a standard to judge actions upon outside of court (and sometimes even in court), yet any moral standard is quite subjective to each person. So how do we determine right or wrong? There is a reason this has been an open problem for all of recorded history.
- indigochill 7y ago
  >You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it Some do. See: secessionists or separatists. For historical examples, the English religious separatists who moved to Holland. Or the Confederates in the American Civil War. To be clear, I'm not defending their position or arguing whether or not this is better than civil disobedience, but clearly there is a separatist/secessionist school of moral thought.
kerkeslager 7y ago
> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany, otherwise cooperating with the Nazis. The principle you're proposing would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2.
- Supermancho 7y ago
  > would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2 That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
  - kerkeslager 7y ago
    > That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy. We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though. > To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future. Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.
nostrademons 7y ago
Bystanders may be interested in Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which provides a descriptive (not prescriptive) framework for classifying moral arguments like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_... The parent comment is a textbook example of stage 4, "law and order". The moral framework behind civil disobedience is stage 5, "social contract".
stormbrew 7y ago
"leaving a country" in terms of being subject to its laws is rather a lot easier said than done.
100100010001 7y ago
Does that mean every government agent that broke the law and spied on American citizens should be deported?

TheCoelacanth 7y ago

Snowden did leave both the company and the country, though.

chrisdhoover 7y ago

There the concept of civil disobedience. You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it, you change it. Refer to the King and the civil rights movement for more. Go further back to the other Martin Luther for even more.

4ntonius8lock 7y ago
Isn't the concept of political refugees contrary to what you are saying? The way I see it, we acknowledge that sometimes a government can act outside of it's own boundaries in a repressive manner. That is why we help those who are fleeing persecution based on political activity. Saying you can't push for change and run away when repression comes would mean that a lot of people I admire, including the Dalai Lama, are bad people. I disagree.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tempestn 7y ago
  There's a difference between saying it's OK to flee repression, which I don't think anyone is disputing, and saying that given the option to flee, it's immoral to instead stay and practice civil disobedience, which was the claim made up thread.
  - 4ntonius8lock 7y ago
    Thanks for clarifying. It seems I was wrong in my understanding.
michaelmrose 7y ago
For many changing it might be more practical than leaving it. For some like many refugees the choice was leave or die.
SkyBelow 7y ago
There is also the option of ignoring it (piracy vs IP laws) and subverting it (many communities refuse to work with cops and handle justice themselves). These are as illegal as civil disobedience (refusing to work with cops might be more legal in some countries). As to if they are more or less moral... what moral framework are we using to judge?
- mcny 7y ago
  We all have our own moral compass. I'm pretty sure the Declaration of Independence (1776) was also unlawful as well...
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    This leaves us at a problem. Legality seems far too poor a standard to judge actions upon outside of court (and sometimes even in court), yet any moral standard is quite subjective to each person. So how do we determine right or wrong? There is a reason this has been an open problem for all of recorded history.
indigochill 7y ago
>You don't simply leave a country because you disagree with it Some do. See: secessionists or separatists. For historical examples, the English religious separatists who moved to Holland. Or the Confederates in the American Civil War. To be clear, I'm not defending their position or arguing whether or not this is better than civil disobedience, but clearly there is a separatist/secessionist school of moral thought.

kerkeslager 7y ago

> I agree with your observation and statement, but also want to add there is a moral argument that if one objects to a law or a contract, one should remove oneself from under it (leave the country/company) rather than break it, even if the law itself is immoral. There may exist a moral argument, but it's pretty easy to disprove that argument: In Nazi Germany, this principle would leave one to just leave Nazi Germany, otherwise cooperating with the Nazis. The principle you're proposing would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2.

Supermancho 7y ago
> would have led to the demise of many more Jews during WW2 That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. Regardless...moral choices are usually pitted against other moral choices and that's part of what shapes our moral "fiber", for lack of better vocabulary. To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future.
- kerkeslager 7y ago
  > That maybe has some implicit assumptions. If the entire populace of German adopted what you call the "principle", Germany would have fallen much faster and with less bloodshed. I suppose you're right, but I don't think the assumption that there won't be a mass exodus is a very unreasonable assumption. Many reasonable ethical principles would have prevented the Nazis from even coming into power if everyone in the country applied it. I think if you were in Nazi Germany and as the Third Reich came to power it would be unreasonable to choose an ethical strategy that only works if everyone applies it, since in the moment, everyone was clearly not applying an ethical strategy. We do have the benefit of hindsight here, though. > To do something or do nothing, both have risk analysis. Mostly, we do our best with what we have learned...which also greatly influences what we imagine for the future. Agreed, ethics is very situational, which is why trying to find widely-applicable rules is often a wild goose chase.

nostrademons 7y ago

Bystanders may be interested in Kohlberg's stages of moral development, which provides a descriptive (not prescriptive) framework for classifying moral arguments like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_... The parent comment is a textbook example of stage 4, "law and order". The moral framework behind civil disobedience is stage 5, "social contract".

stormbrew 7y ago

"leaving a country" in terms of being subject to its laws is rather a lot easier said than done.

100100010001 7y ago

Does that mean every government agent that broke the law and spied on American citizens should be deported?