3 ms·

No, I don't want anybody to give a damn about what percentage I belong to, just as I don't give a damn about what percentage they belong to. The basis of a law

by kijin 13y ago

No, I don't want anybody to give a damn about what percentage I belong to, just as I don't give a damn about what percentage they belong to. The basis of a lawful society is that the law gives people incentive to obey it, by punishing people who disobey. It makes the individually pragmatic coincide with the greater good. I never said that disobedient individuals will not be punished. I only said that they have the right to try not to be punished (as in Hobbes's example of the death penalty). But in the end, what they want might not matter because the state is vastly more powerful than any single individual. An important feature of a lawful society is that the law tends to win. But might doesn't make right. The Mafia always tends to find you in the end. What happens when everyone willingly defies the law and gains the power to evade punishment? Anarchy? No, just a momentary revolution and then back to order. For most people, extreme disorder just isn't a rational choice. Political instability causes stock prices to go down, right? Who wants that? So there will always be a (more or less) lawful society, regardless what anyone thinks about its legitimacy. Anarchy is a fictitious threat that friends of the establishment tend to wave in the air when they feel threatened, that's all.

foldr 13y ago
What if someone decides that the law against murder is unjust and tries to kill you? Would you care then? I don't think it's realistic to view the law in that way. I think that it's possible to have a lawful society only if the majority of people are willing to obey the law for it's own sake the majority of the time. You'd need to have a police state to enforce the laws otherwise (or "Leviathan", as you might term it). In most countries, people could break all kinds of laws all the time and get away with it. Also, it's very unclear what it would mean to say that someone has the right to try not to be punished. How can I tell the difference between a situation where I have that right and where I don't? Since no-one could possibly stop me from merely trying, it seems vacuous to say that I have the right to do so. If you mean "has the right" in a moral sense (i.e., they would be morally justified in doing so), then I see what you mean but don't agree.
- kijin 13y ago
  There is no law against murder, only a law that requires the punishment of murderers. ("A person who commits X, Y, or Z shall be sentenced to W.") There is, however, a moral imperative against murder ("Thou shalt not murder"), as well as a moral right for me to protect myself from harm. The validity of moral imperatives and rights does not depend on the existence of any law. I definitely care when people disobey moral imperatives or violate moral rights. As a matter of fact, the majority of people in any society obey the majority of the law the majority of the time. After all, laws are often specifically designed to coincide with what the majority thinks is right, convenient, reasonable, etc., so the majority will obey those laws for the sake of doing the right thing, doing what is convenient, doing what is reasonable, etc. But if you want people to obey the law for the sake of obeying the law, I don't see what might justify such a demand. In my opinion, criminal law is just a device to facilitate obedience to moral imperatives. (Other laws might serve other purposes, such as facilitating commerce.) It's like a proxy server that helps me talk to an authoritative data source. A lot of the time, the proxy is good enough. But if the proxy interferes with my websocket, I have every right to bypass the proxy and talk directly to the data source. Note that this doesn't mean that I'm going to ditch the proxy altogether. I'm still going to use the proxy for all of my non-websocket needs because it's faster, better documented, etc. By the way, sorry for the vagueness surrounding the phrase "has the right". I meant it in a justificatory sense. In other words, if and only if a law contradicts moral imperatives, anyone has JUSTIFICATION to break that particular law and try to evade punishment. If, on the other hand, the law coincides with moral imperatives, there can be NO justification for breaking it (not because of the law but because of moral imperatives), but a person may still be justified in trying to evade punishment depending on whether the punishment is moral. For example, if the law requires disproportionately severe punishment for a petty crime, that's immoral.
  - foldr 13y ago
    > There is no law against murder, only a law that requires the punishment of murderers. That's news to me. Is this actually your interpretation of the present state of affairs in the US, or is it just how you think things ought to be? >The validity of moral imperatives and rights does not depend on the existence of any law. That's not a point of disagreement here. The question is whether, in addition to the other moral imperatives, there is a (defeasible) moral imperative to obey the law. >In my opinion, criminal law is just a device to facilitate obedience to moral imperatives. Again, this is a fantasy view of the law, not one that can possibly be applied in practice. Consider theft. How are you going to determine, in every case, whether it is morally justified that someone owns something? You can always go back and find an injustice in the chain of events which leads to ownership. Or take a clear case, say, Bernie Madoff. Would it have been ok to steal from him because he didn't justly acquire his possessions?

by kijin 13y ago

foldr 13y ago

What if someone decides that the law against murder is unjust and tries to kill you? Would you care then? I don't think it's realistic to view the law in that way. I think that it's possible to have a lawful society only if the majority of people are willing to obey the law for it's own sake the majority of the time. You'd need to have a police state to enforce the laws otherwise (or "Leviathan", as you might term it). In most countries, people could break all kinds of laws all the time and get away with it. Also, it's very unclear what it would mean to say that someone has the right to try not to be punished. How can I tell the difference between a situation where I have that right and where I don't? Since no-one could possibly stop me from merely trying, it seems vacuous to say that I have the right to do so. If you mean "has the right" in a moral sense (i.e., they would be morally justified in doing so), then I see what you mean but don't agree.

kijin 13y ago
There is no law against murder, only a law that requires the punishment of murderers. ("A person who commits X, Y, or Z shall be sentenced to W.") There is, however, a moral imperative against murder ("Thou shalt not murder"), as well as a moral right for me to protect myself from harm. The validity of moral imperatives and rights does not depend on the existence of any law. I definitely care when people disobey moral imperatives or violate moral rights. As a matter of fact, the majority of people in any society obey the majority of the law the majority of the time. After all, laws are often specifically designed to coincide with what the majority thinks is right, convenient, reasonable, etc., so the majority will obey those laws for the sake of doing the right thing, doing what is convenient, doing what is reasonable, etc. But if you want people to obey the law for the sake of obeying the law, I don't see what might justify such a demand. In my opinion, criminal law is just a device to facilitate obedience to moral imperatives. (Other laws might serve other purposes, such as facilitating commerce.) It's like a proxy server that helps me talk to an authoritative data source. A lot of the time, the proxy is good enough. But if the proxy interferes with my websocket, I have every right to bypass the proxy and talk directly to the data source. Note that this doesn't mean that I'm going to ditch the proxy altogether. I'm still going to use the proxy for all of my non-websocket needs because it's faster, better documented, etc. By the way, sorry for the vagueness surrounding the phrase "has the right". I meant it in a justificatory sense. In other words, if and only if a law contradicts moral imperatives, anyone has JUSTIFICATION to break that particular law and try to evade punishment. If, on the other hand, the law coincides with moral imperatives, there can be NO justification for breaking it (not because of the law but because of moral imperatives), but a person may still be justified in trying to evade punishment depending on whether the punishment is moral. For example, if the law requires disproportionately severe punishment for a petty crime, that's immoral.
- foldr 13y ago
  > There is no law against murder, only a law that requires the punishment of murderers. That's news to me. Is this actually your interpretation of the present state of affairs in the US, or is it just how you think things ought to be? >The validity of moral imperatives and rights does not depend on the existence of any law. That's not a point of disagreement here. The question is whether, in addition to the other moral imperatives, there is a (defeasible) moral imperative to obey the law. >In my opinion, criminal law is just a device to facilitate obedience to moral imperatives. Again, this is a fantasy view of the law, not one that can possibly be applied in practice. Consider theft. How are you going to determine, in every case, whether it is morally justified that someone owns something? You can always go back and find an injustice in the chain of events which leads to ownership. Or take a clear case, say, Bernie Madoff. Would it have been ok to steal from him because he didn't justly acquire his possessions?