As many of you know, I like to discuss topics and questions which really have no end and answer, respectively. Today, I would like to raise some questions about the law, or lawful living in general. These questions are simple and take little time to read. I will not bring the full force of this train of thought to bear.
My first question is this: what is lawful? Simply, it is that which follows a law. This can be simple when speaking of physical laws, such as Newtonian physics. I have yet to see anything disprove the simplicity of force equals mass times acceleration. No. What I mean to raise here are simple points about the laws imposed by men. What is lawful when it comes to the laws of men? Simply "obeying" the law? Obeying the law unquestionably, even if it hurts one's own family or something personally doted on? You get the picture.
Second question: when is unlawful behavior acceptable? Is unlawful behavior acceptable when taken against unjust rule? Is it acceptable when taken simply on a whim, with no harm in my mind for any recipient? Is it ever acceptable? I find unlawful behavior to often be a heinous and disgusting term - murder, rape. However, I also can find it to be the best term in the world, especially when countering violent unlawful individuals or major injustice.
Third question: when and how does one fight to change laws, especially if unjust and/or worthless? There are many arguments that could be made here. One of the easiest is for the legalization of some, soft, recreational drugs. (NOTE: I could not care less here). For sake of argument, let's make a historical reference. Prohibition. Alcohol is banned. This leads to the creation of some of the most famous, criminal minds of the 20th century. For sake of argument, what does banning marijuana do? It leads to some of the most famous, criminal minds of the 20th and, sadly, 21st century. Anyway, some could make good arguments that some U.S. laws are unjust and worthless.
Another comment that adds to the thought process, if you care about classical philosophers. Aristotle states, from Nicomachean Ethics, that "it is possible that to be a good man is not the same as to be a good citizen of any state whatever." What? Virtue in an unlawful person?
Thinking is always better than being a dumbass.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
short note, without thinking too heavily on it right now (i'm on the road and tired after a long day), but i think this quote does bring up an important point...much along the same of your comment from Aristotle:
ReplyDeleteWhen injustice becomes law, to revolt becomes one's duty. - Albert Camus
i believe that there is a definite deviation of justice (and for that matter, sense) from many laws of the world governments (including our own).
originally, it has always seemed to me that laws were supposed to exist to assist the general populace do for the good what they would otherwise not do (or understand in the sense of the 'general good') on their own. i think we have gotten a very long way away from that concept, as well as the concept of 'general good', among other issues.
above and beyond this is the issue i think i brought up a long time ago...just looked it up, and you actually told me to remind you of it...july 07 myspace blog...go check it again, and i think it'll describe my other point on this.
*ramble*ramble*nom*nom*nom*ramble*ramble*
i'm pretty old school about a lot of it too - i.e. sense of the 'general good'/what laws are really about. i looked up the blog, but i think it was june 07. regardless, the ship's captain/sailor parable is always very apt...and unfortunately, it still seems all too hard for many to figure out
ReplyDeleteOkay, this article is incredibly deep and open, but unfortunately it caught me when I'm totally in non-thinking mode.
ReplyDeleteBut I'd like to just offer one of my "favorite" moral dilemmas: the use of morally reprehensible (illegal) behavior for the greater good - e.g., the debate over government use of torture in various scenarios.
I am personally opposed to torture, because I think it erodes at the moral base of what makes our nation a notch or two above others. Other nations see (or used to see) us this way, too. That's why Abu Ghraib was not only a shock, but a disappointment for us. And even though international law is probably the weakest, most loosely-interpreted and unenforced areas of law on our planet... it's still law, and torture is one of the few practices that's pretty concretely labeled "illegal" (though, technically, so is war...).
But, there's always the "Jack Bauer" argument: If you knew you only had two minutes before an impending terrorist attack, and you had the plot's mastermind captured in front of you, and you knew he had information that could stop the attack... would you take jumper cables to his nipples for the next two minutes to potentially save the lives of the public?
Discuss...
Or, just watch "The Dark Knight" again. That's full of similar dilemmas surrounding Batman's character and role as crime-fighter...
ReplyDeleteMy problem with the torture-in-time-of-need situation is, primarily, this: it is used to justify the codification of torture as law, or, at least, acceptable under executive order...oh wait, that's a law. I completely understand the need to gain timely information to stop a major impending attack, HOWEVER, I would find it reprehensible if this country completely codified torture as law based on one, unlikely hypothetical.
ReplyDeleteIf that's the case, then you have to outlaw any action based on free will. Who knows what someone might do!
Going back to your question on what is lawful - I cannot expect humans to delineate laws that transcend time like the gravity/acceleration example. And in fact, human-created law rarely stands the test of time without being modified, eliminated, or simply ignored. Being lawful imo, in relation to your question, means following the rules that allow you to exist in a community during a specific time period (ie out of a state of nature, or, another country). Yet, there are only rare opportunities to avoid the laws of man.
ReplyDeleteMy stab at hypothetical thinking: If our goal is to reduce terrorism on our planet, is torture not inflicting terror and thus contrary to our goals anyway? Why do time restraints make us think of using violence or force? Is there anything to learn from all our training on staying calm and rational in sticky situations (ie your car is sinking in a lake)? There was an audio brief fromHomeland Security Inside and Out, audio titled "How to Break a Terrorist" this week. Yall probably know more than I do on the effectiveness of humane information gathering but it was interesting nonetheless.
"Law is the point where life and logic meet" Owen Barfield
ReplyDeleteCL-
ReplyDeleteThat is a good quote, but I believe, if my searches are correct (I presume nothing about Owen Barfield, of whom I know nothing) then his quote is thus:
If law is the point where life and logic meet, perception is the point where life and imagination meet.
While still a notable statement, I do not think it is as helpful here as could be. Moreover, he who makes the laws imparts his own logic, correct or not, into these laws. What are we to do if the logic used to make laws was, perhaps, flawed?