Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II
We are clearly starting in opposite directions. You are going from a law should be followed a priori. I'm going from the side where a law has to constantly justify its existence.
|
Yes, that is my position.
Quote:
In moral principles, as a rule, freedom is good and certainly the default state. Every law constitutes a restriction of that freedom, so there had better be a very good ethical reason proportionate (or better) to its restriction for it to exist (generally for the utilitarian good of a working society). The moment the reason disappears, or we find it it never existed, dump it. If it still exists, it deserves to be ignored.
Now justify your position, please.
|
Laws are made by those elected (or appointed) in authority over us and it is the duty of citizens to obey those laws. It does not matter to me
why a law was passed, or my own personal opinion of the law. I would only disobey a law if I found it morally objectionable to obey it. Even then I would not protest but accept the consequences of being a law-breaker.
The problem I see with your position is that it makes laws subjective. What if I found certain laws morally unjustified (note that this is different from being morally objectionable)...is it then acceptable for me to disobey them, even though I might find myself in the minority? What if I were a communist who believed that property is theft? Would I be justified in taking things from others because I believed that there could be no crime of 'stealing' if nobody could own property?
Laws are absolute and do not require moral justification for the simple reason that morals differ from person to person, therefore there cannot exist a legal system based on personal morality.