5 ms·

A couple of days ago one of my kids asked me I could give an example of something that was illegal but not immoral. We had a nice conversation working through

A couple of days ago one of my kids asked me I could give an example of something that was illegal but not immoral. We had a nice conversation working through the difference between the two. It was interesting to break things down into categories of: 1. Immoral and should be illegal. 2. Immoral but shouldn't be illegal. 3. Moral but should be illegal. 4. Moral and shouldn't be illegal. Stories like this seem to me to be category 4 but I can understand how some people may see it as a 1.

thaumasiotes 12y ago
I'd be interested to hear more about category 3.
- sillysaurus3 12y ago
  Vigilante justice.
- te_platt 12y ago
  Things like "Keep of the grass". Where if just a few people do something there's not a problem but where if too many people do it it could cause bigger problems. I think most political arguments come down to what should or shouldn't be illegal but get confused with what is moral or not.
  - djur 12y ago
    There's a pretty good argument that intentionally disobeying the law in the commission of a normally morally neutral act is itself immoral. If a useful, just law is routinely flouted, eventually the usefulness of that law will collapse. If many such laws are frequently disregarded, eventually the credibility of the legal authority will be lost. (This is a good argument for not passing unenforceable or excessively strict laws.) One of the interesting things about laws is that in many cases people follow them without regard for the consequences of not following them. A society where people will obey laws because they are valid, just, and reasonable is much better than one where they obey laws because the alternative is a flogging or hanging.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
- djur 12y ago
  The two examples most familiar to me are the Jean Valjean scenario (stealing for survival) and the Jack Bauer scenario (coercion or torture to save lives). In both cases, there's an argument that the underlying activity (theft, torture) should remain illegal. It would be difficult or impossible to codify all the permissible extenuating circumstances, and leaving the question open-ended and letting it be decided in court would be a disaster, much worse than existing carve-outs like self defense as an excuse for homicide (which is itself kind of a mess, legally). Certain dour strains of penal theory would argue that the 'virtuous criminal' still requires equal punishment (Chinese legalism, for example), but I think the more popular stance in the modern day is that judges and state executives (governors, presidents) should have the option of leniency. This takes the fate of Jean Valjean outside the sphere of law and exposes it to popular opinion -- an unreasonable act of clemency would be faced with blowback (just ask Mike Huckabee).
  - nitrogen 12y ago
    ...the Jack Bauer scenario... I find 24 to be much more interesting when I view Bauer as a second villain, rather than the unquestionable hero as it seems he's portrayed.
    - thrownaway2424 12y ago
      Indeed, the series is far more enjoyable if you picture Bauer as the pawn of an elusive cryptoregime furthering its dark agenda. Lots of things work better that way. I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there.
      - contingencies 12y ago
        I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there. Brilliant idea for a community remake or mod!
  - 12y ago
- ceras 12y ago
  If a poor person with no other options stole a loaf of bread from someone well off to feed their kid, I would consider it entirely moral. But theft should still be illegal.
bpatrianakos 12y ago
What part don't you understand? Why FedEx is in trouble or why the pharmacies are illegal? I'm going to assume it's the latter and it's a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, these pharmacies provide medications at a lower cost than in the US and some countries and would be beneficial to many. So far it looks like its moral and shouldn't be illegal. Then we begin to think about the people who go online and buy medications they aren't prescribed, playing doctor on themselves. We can say that's their own problem but I'd side with the idea that it does more harm than good. Then there's the fact that these pharmacies often prey on drug addicts who require treatment, not more drugs. There's way more to it than that but regardless, it's pretty easy to see why people would be believe they fit into category 1.

thaumasiotes 12y ago

I'd be interested to hear more about category 3.

sillysaurus3 12y ago
Vigilante justice.
te_platt 12y ago
Things like "Keep of the grass". Where if just a few people do something there's not a problem but where if too many people do it it could cause bigger problems. I think most political arguments come down to what should or shouldn't be illegal but get confused with what is moral or not.
- djur 12y ago
  There's a pretty good argument that intentionally disobeying the law in the commission of a normally morally neutral act is itself immoral. If a useful, just law is routinely flouted, eventually the usefulness of that law will collapse. If many such laws are frequently disregarded, eventually the credibility of the legal authority will be lost. (This is a good argument for not passing unenforceable or excessively strict laws.) One of the interesting things about laws is that in many cases people follow them without regard for the consequences of not following them. A society where people will obey laws because they are valid, just, and reasonable is much better than one where they obey laws because the alternative is a flogging or hanging.
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
djur 12y ago
The two examples most familiar to me are the Jean Valjean scenario (stealing for survival) and the Jack Bauer scenario (coercion or torture to save lives). In both cases, there's an argument that the underlying activity (theft, torture) should remain illegal. It would be difficult or impossible to codify all the permissible extenuating circumstances, and leaving the question open-ended and letting it be decided in court would be a disaster, much worse than existing carve-outs like self defense as an excuse for homicide (which is itself kind of a mess, legally). Certain dour strains of penal theory would argue that the 'virtuous criminal' still requires equal punishment (Chinese legalism, for example), but I think the more popular stance in the modern day is that judges and state executives (governors, presidents) should have the option of leniency. This takes the fate of Jean Valjean outside the sphere of law and exposes it to popular opinion -- an unreasonable act of clemency would be faced with blowback (just ask Mike Huckabee).
- nitrogen 12y ago
  ...the Jack Bauer scenario... I find 24 to be much more interesting when I view Bauer as a second villain, rather than the unquestionable hero as it seems he's portrayed.
  - thrownaway2424 12y ago
    Indeed, the series is far more enjoyable if you picture Bauer as the pawn of an elusive cryptoregime furthering its dark agenda. Lots of things work better that way. I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there.
    - contingencies 12y ago
      I kept waiting for the character in the video game "Splinter Cell" to figure out that he was being played by global corporatist puppetmasters, but unfortunately the plot never got there. Brilliant idea for a community remake or mod!
- 12y ago
ceras 12y ago
If a poor person with no other options stole a loaf of bread from someone well off to feed their kid, I would consider it entirely moral. But theft should still be illegal.

bpatrianakos 12y ago

What part don't you understand? Why FedEx is in trouble or why the pharmacies are illegal? I'm going to assume it's the latter and it's a bit of a gray area. On the one hand, these pharmacies provide medications at a lower cost than in the US and some countries and would be beneficial to many. So far it looks like its moral and shouldn't be illegal. Then we begin to think about the people who go online and buy medications they aren't prescribed, playing doctor on themselves. We can say that's their own problem but I'd side with the idea that it does more harm than good. Then there's the fact that these pharmacies often prey on drug addicts who require treatment, not more drugs. There's way more to it than that but regardless, it's pretty easy to see why people would be believe they fit into category 1.