Breaking the law is a crime

[Avatar]

Lucky for me I don't accept it.

As to your second point though, the legitimacy of law has to be based on something...otherwise we couldn't say that a law about segregation for example, is illegitimate.

--A

[Cail]

It's based on societal norms. Segregation was perfectly legitimate when people believed it was legitimate.

And you do accept the legitimacy of the state. You're reaping the rewards of it as we speak.

[Avatar]

I'd scarcely call it reaping rewards...I pay for what I get from them.

But back to the question...if laws are justified by societal norms, (which I agree), and if segregation was justified in that time by those norms, (which it was), is that the same as saying that it was right, (not acceptable, right) when they did it?

And if not, then why?

I mean, to the people who were doing it, it was right. Usually I would say that that was the same as it being right. (Although I would qualify that with "to those people at that time" my "instinct" is still to say that it was wrong. But by what standards? Our standards? Which didn't exist then? A conundrum indeed...I find myself verging on saying it was objectively wrong, despite being subjectively right...

Unless I concede that my "objective" wrong is still actually subjective, (my own subjectivity) and therefore not necessarily wrong per se, even if distasteful...

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Yes, it was wrong. And it still is, despite the fact that it still goes on. Just as a lot of other wrong things go on in a lot of places. That's my subjective opinion. But if I had big enough guns, I'd make it an objective law.

[Cail]

That's the pickle.

50 years ago, no one thought twice about discriminating against gays. The law supported that discrimination, and very few people would have looked at you the least bit funny for talking about "those damn fairies". That dynamic has changed dramatically, and will continue to change. Looking at the temporal and cultural context of the US in the 50s, the laws were "right". Looking back, some of us don't see it that way.

Likewise, I predict that at some point in the future, people will look at the current abortion policy in the US the same way we look at Jim Crow laws. Does that mean that everyone who has supported Roe over the last 40 years (including law enforcement) was wrong? I don't think so. I mean yeah, I think Roe was a bad decision, but the law is the law, and I find that I can't really fault people for following the law.

But basically, there is no objective "right" and "wrong" in the sense that 1+1=2. We can agree that it's not very nice to kill or rape, but I'm not so sure that there's some overarching "rightness" or "wrongness" that is universal.

Which is a damn odd thing for a practicing Catholic to say.

[Avatar]

Good post.

--A

[Fist and Faith]

Problem is, we can't agree that it's not very nice to kill and rape. Aside from the many individuals who do one or both who do not exhibit any signs of insanity (unless we decide to say those acts are signs of insanity), there are places where a little girl can be raped, then legally killed for having had premarital sex. The rape and the killing aren't considered "not nice"; only the "premarital sex" is. I agree that there's never going to be any kind of 1+1=2 objectivity when it comes to morality. And I don't care. That's a bunch of shit, and, if I had enough guns, I'd go stop them from doing it.

[Cail]

And that's perfectly reasonable Fist.

But....

If they got a bunch of guns and came over here to punish the "wrong" that they see us doing by not dealing with these young girls, would they be "right"?

Who says your morality is more "right" than theirs, and what gives you the right to impose your morality on them?

[Fist and Faith]

If morality is subjective, which I believe it is, then I don't see any reason to choose one other than the one I personally feel to be good. And they'll doubtless choose the one they personally feel to be good. (Unless any of us chooses one for a reason other than feeling it to be good. I guess some might choose to do what they feel is evil, if it gives them power. Not to be confused with those who feel that gaining power is good, no matter how it is gained. I'm talking about those who act against what they feel is good.) And thus arises conflict.

[Cail]

Precisely.

While you and I may (and it sounds like we do) disagree with their morality, that doesn't make us right and them wrong.

[Fist and Faith]

Correct. At least in the objective sense. But in my mind... And if I had some guns...

[Cail]

Oh sure, I'd storm in with you.

You could even borrow some of my guns.

[Lord Mhoram]

Cail,

Then you don't think that the state should impose sanctions?

That doesn't make any sense.

It wouldn't make sense if I said that the state is ipso facto illegitimate. What I said is that the state has no rights; rather, it enforces rights. I also say that the state must justify itself. I think certain government actions like the ones you mentioned have justified themselves. Not everyone has to agree. That's the nature of a democratic society.

It's based on societal norms. Segregation was perfectly legitimate when people believed it was legitimate.

I would argue that in large part, moral systems are social norms. But not totally.

Fist,

Problem is, we can't agree that it's not very nice to kill and rape.

It seems to me that you and Cail are preaching a kind of moral nihilism, that it is somehow illegitimate for me or anyone to act in opposition to political systems - imperialism, colonialism, racism, state aggression, whatever - based on moral principles which I think are inherent, while simultaneously supporting other systems. It's perfectly within my right as (1) a citizen and (2) a thinking moral creature to make those sorts of judgments about the state.

If we accepted the view that because breaking the law is the crime, I must accept the state's right to punish that crime, we would live in an authoritarian state. Perhaps some of you accept this.

[Avatar]

I don't think it automatically means you don't have a right to oppose it. But then, I see a difference between the technicality of crime and the morality of it.

--A

[Cail]

That's a very simplistic way of looking at it.

You accept the government's right to punish pedophilia, do you not? What makes the state's right (or responsibility) to punish that crime any more valid than the right (or responsibility) to punish violators of the Jim Crow laws?

[Avatar]

Because I agree with it.

(But at least I know that's the only reason I consider it more valid.)

--A

[Cail]

Exactly. Saying that it's legitimate for the state (which is an extension of the people, hence the reason crimes are prosecuted as, "The State of Maryland versus Joe Schmukatelli") to enforce certain laws bit not others is a rather facile way of saying that it's legitimate for the state to enforce the laws you like.

In the US, the law reflects the will of the majority of the people. Any law on the books should be enforced, or the people need to change the laws.

[Avatar]

But as long as a majority accept an unjust law, there's nothing the rest can do, even if they realise it's unjust.

--A

[Cail]

But just because the majority believe a law is just or unjust doesn't make it so. And that is the sacrifice you make by living in a country.

I feel that the way US citizens are taxed is unjust. If I stop paying taxes, does the US government have the right to enforce those laws?

[Avatar]

Interesting question...if nothing else, they have a right to deny you the services that those taxes pay for. Anyway, it's not taxation itself you find unjust...just the way that its done.

But then, to return to my point, how do we tell if a law is unjust? We all agree that the segregation laws of the past were unjust, right? Laws that should have been ignored.

But they remained law, and the people who broke them were criminals in the eyes of the state. Even though we can agree they shouldn't have been.

Who is right? Us or the state?

--A