4 ms·

How about this argument: It is against the law.

by radisb 12y ago

Karunamon 12y ago
So is not coming to a full stop at red lights, driving 1 mile per hour over the speed limit, bringing lobsters under a certain length into the country, exposing government corruption, and many more questionable things. Your point? Slavish adherence to the law makes you obedient, not noble.
narrowrail 12y ago
In the U.S., it is a civil offense, not criminal (as long as it's non-commercial). In other countries (i.e. Canada), it isn't even a civil offense.
tomjen3 12y ago
You mean it is written on a piece of paper and enforced by armed men? That is not very much justification.
- radisb 12y ago
  No. I mean it is written on a piece of paper and enforced by sometimes armed men to whom you implicitly grant authority to do, whenever you use the law to protect your own rights. That is the trade off in democracy: We have to obey laws we dont like or agree with, in order to be able to enjoy the benefits of those we do agree with
  - Karunamon 12y ago
    We have to obey laws we dont like or agree with, in order to be able to enjoy the benefits of those we do agree with There is no such tradeoff - there is only the existence of the law and its enforcement. An unenforced or almost never enforced law need not exist and is treated as same. I don't have to pretend to respect the copyright lobby to gain the benefits of not being murdered in my sleep.
    - radisb 12y ago
      I am sure the people who would murder you in your sleep can easily come up with a similar argument. For them, murdering someone is not as morally heavy as it is for you.
      - Karunamon 12y ago
        That's just it though - murder isn't wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. As far as moral conundrums go, that one's pretty cut and dry. Copyright infringement is a much more complicated calculus.
        radisb 12y ago
        True, but the problem is that while we can agree on what is illegal, we cant agree on what is wrong. So we "sign" a contract called law, in order to establish some common ground. So when I see that the contract no longer suits me( and I do believe that this is the case indeed nowadays with many laws), I consider it unethical to just breach the terms of the contract instead of negotiating a change. I still want others to respect the contract even if it doesnt suit them, don't I?
mikeash 12y ago
That's a decent argument against doing it (assuming the law is actually enforced) but a terrible argument for why it's wrong.
- radisb 12y ago
  Well, suppose that you do pay for something and the seller gets your money but never delivers you the goods. Consider your feelings, thoughs, or whatever as an argument for "why it's wrong"
  - mikeash 12y ago
    In that case I'd certainly use the law to obtain redress, but to use the law as the basis of why something is wrong is completely backwards. We codify right and wrong into law, not the other way around.
    - radisb 12y ago
      True, but where did I use the law in my response to you? You wanted an argument for why it is wrong. I gave it to you. Anyway, I agree with you, but if this doesnt go two ways, it means there are laws that don't codify right or wrong. And even worse, laws that codify the opposite of our belief. Should we ignore those laws?
      - mikeash 12y ago
        Where did I say I wanted an argument for why it is wrong? I just wanted to point out that "because it's illegal" is a terrible argument. Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this.
        radisb 12y ago
        >Where did I say I wanted an argument for why it is wrong? In your first response. >Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this. First, this defeats the purpose of law. Everyone has their own beliefs. Imagine what would happen if everyone started selectively obeying the laws that are compatible with their beliefs. Believe me there is quite a diversity of belief systems out there. Secondly, those many people that would say yes, should try to change the law instead of ignoring it. I can also accept a code of ethics that accepts ignoring the law, as long as it waives the rights given by law.

How about this argument: It is against the law.

by radisb 12y ago

How about this argument: It is against the law.

So is not coming to a full stop at red lights, driving 1 mile per hour over the speed limit, bringing lobsters under a certain length into the country, exposing government corruption, and many more questionable things. Your point? Slavish adherence to the law makes you obedient, not noble.

narrowrail 12y ago

In the U.S., it is a civil offense, not criminal (as long as it's non-commercial). In other countries (i.e. Canada), it isn't even a civil offense.

tomjen3 12y ago

You mean it is written on a piece of paper and enforced by armed men? That is not very much justification.

radisb 12y ago
No. I mean it is written on a piece of paper and enforced by sometimes armed men to whom you implicitly grant authority to do, whenever you use the law to protect your own rights. That is the trade off in democracy: We have to obey laws we dont like or agree with, in order to be able to enjoy the benefits of those we do agree with
- Karunamon 12y ago
  We have to obey laws we dont like or agree with, in order to be able to enjoy the benefits of those we do agree with There is no such tradeoff - there is only the existence of the law and its enforcement. An unenforced or almost never enforced law need not exist and is treated as same. I don't have to pretend to respect the copyright lobby to gain the benefits of not being murdered in my sleep.
  - radisb 12y ago
    I am sure the people who would murder you in your sleep can easily come up with a similar argument. For them, murdering someone is not as morally heavy as it is for you.
    - Karunamon 12y ago
      That's just it though - murder isn't wrong because it's illegal, it's illegal because it's wrong. As far as moral conundrums go, that one's pretty cut and dry. Copyright infringement is a much more complicated calculus.
      - radisb 12y ago
        True, but the problem is that while we can agree on what is illegal, we cant agree on what is wrong. So we "sign" a contract called law, in order to establish some common ground. So when I see that the contract no longer suits me( and I do believe that this is the case indeed nowadays with many laws), I consider it unethical to just breach the terms of the contract instead of negotiating a change. I still want others to respect the contract even if it doesnt suit them, don't I?

mikeash 12y ago

That's a decent argument against doing it (assuming the law is actually enforced) but a terrible argument for why it's wrong.

radisb 12y ago
Well, suppose that you do pay for something and the seller gets your money but never delivers you the goods. Consider your feelings, thoughs, or whatever as an argument for "why it's wrong"
- mikeash 12y ago
  In that case I'd certainly use the law to obtain redress, but to use the law as the basis of why something is wrong is completely backwards. We codify right and wrong into law, not the other way around.
  - radisb 12y ago
    True, but where did I use the law in my response to you? You wanted an argument for why it is wrong. I gave it to you. Anyway, I agree with you, but if this doesnt go two ways, it means there are laws that don't codify right or wrong. And even worse, laws that codify the opposite of our belief. Should we ignore those laws?
    - mikeash 12y ago
      Where did I say I wanted an argument for why it is wrong? I just wanted to point out that "because it's illegal" is a terrible argument. Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this.
      - radisb 12y ago
        >Where did I say I wanted an argument for why it is wrong? In your first response. >Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this. First, this defeats the purpose of law. Everyone has their own beliefs. Imagine what would happen if everyone started selectively obeying the laws that are compatible with their beliefs. Believe me there is quite a diversity of belief systems out there. Secondly, those many people that would say yes, should try to change the law instead of ignoring it. I can also accept a code of ethics that accepts ignoring the law, as long as it waives the rights given by law.