Kevin's Watch

See, that's where this falls apart. Not everyone felt that segregation laws were unjust.

The problem with deciding "this law is unjust, I'm not going to follow it and the government shouldn't enforce it" is that it puts you both above the law and in a superior position to everyone else in the country. No one elected you (or me, or LM) into a position to decide which laws are just.

There is no universal right or wrong once you get past objective things like 1+1=2.

So who decides? (If not us?)

And I'm not asking whether people felt they were unjust, I'm asking if they could have been unjust regardless of what people felt.

--A

How can something be unjust regardless of how people felt?

Society (for better or worse) decides what's right and what's wrong. Different societies decide different things.

Edit-And this is also the major flaw in dictatorships (benevolent or otherwise). The will of the people is replaced by the will of the one.

No reason that the will of the people is any more valid or just than the will of the one. Democracies sufer from exactly the same flaw...the supposition that the will of the many is somehow better. This should be patently untrue to anybody who has ever dealt with a committee.

As for the segregation...the people who were being discriminated against were pretty sure it was unjust.

Damn. See...there's my problem with subjectivity...internally, I still see some things as right or wrong, even though intellectually I know they only apply inside my head.

--A

No doubt, but the will of the people is far more fair to the people.

Hey, I think segregation was unjust too, just like I think our taxation is unjust.

Oh I know you do. But is there a reason[/] we think it was unjust?

--A

Sure, but what makes that reason any more valid than the reason people think it is just?

I mean sure, it may be more valid to me, but that doesn't mean anything to you necessarily.

Number of people harmed by it?

(Sure...what constitutes harm and who says so. )

So it all boils down to who can force their idea of it on everybody else, and it stays that way until the people who disagree get enough power to force a change. It's like the quote in the good/evil thread..."whichever opinion prevails is a function of power and not truth."

Which implies old Nietzsche thought there was truth though. And I'm not sure that anything yet is convincing me of the fact, however much I'd like there to be.

Looks like there is no truth at all...only power.

(Damn...that train of thought is really making me think...)

--A

That's it. There is no truth, only the accepted version of it.

I believe that it's wrong to harm other people. Ironically, the only way I can make anyone else agree with me is by force.

And then there's the fact that "harm" is entirely subjective as well.

Cail wrote:I believe that it's wrong to harm other people. Ironically, the only way I can make anyone else agree with me is by force.

And I totally agree. So, we just have to figure out what constitutes harm, get enough people to agree, and force everybody to stop doing it.

--A

In breaking an law a crime? Even if the offender feels it's unjust.
or should a jury decide if the law is unjust.

I think we have to decide for ourselves whether a law is unjust and whether we should ignore it or not.

Of course, that does leave us with someinteresting problems, but ultimately, we decide anyway. And follow that decision. For good or ill.

--A

And that's fine. I make the decision nearly every day that the speed limit on the road between home and work is unjust. But I'm also prepared to face the consequences of my belief.