Pyrrho

There are a couple of problems with what you claim. First, it may not be financially possible to leave, even if the country in question allows you to go whenever you wish. Furthermore, other countries may not accept you (seriously investigate what it would take for you to move to New Zealand, for example, if you have any doubts about this).

But there is a more fundamental problem with what you say: There is absolutely no country in the world that has all of the laws I want, and only the laws I want. So there is absolutely no place for me to go, even if I actually had the money and ability to go wherever I wanted (which, like most other people, I lack).

Furthermore, you claim:

The simple fact is that people do violate the law all of the time, but that does not mean that we live in anarchy. So your reasoning for why we must obey all laws fails.

You state (in a later post; all further quotes are from later posts):

This is simply false. To give but one example, have you ever heard of the Roman Empire? Or do you imagine that several hundred years is not "long"? Or do you regard slavery as just?

You state:

However, we have no reason to believe that that is the case.

You state:

So, when a German, during WWII, refused military conscription, because he regarded it as an unjust war, and was consequently hanged, you imagine that man was "cowardly" for refusing to do what he believed to be wrong? You must have a very strange notion of what it means to be "cowardly".

You state:

You do not explain the "logical" problem with being a member of a society who does not obey all of the laws.

You state:

I see that I was right in thinking you had a very deviant notion of "cowardice". Most of us use the term in a manner that suggests that the person acts through fear, though obviously that is not your meaning.

Your panacea, like most panaceas, will not work. It won't work for the reasons stated at the beginning of my post, and because not everyone has a problem with unjust laws (as many are unjust themselves).

You state:

I see that you are not following your own definition of "cowardice" (see above). (In case this is unclear to you, civil disobedience is very different from just ignoring the law. Civil disobedience involves paying attention to what the law is, and willfully and (often) openly disobeying it, in order to draw attention to the unjust law. Previously, you defined "cowardice" as ignoring the law and remaining in the society, which means that one could not be committing civil disobedience.)

One of the rather striking things about your comments is that you seem to fail to notice that many times in civil disobedience, the breaking of the law is the method used to change the law. If that is the only realistic option for someone to change the law, do you imagine that the law should not be changed, because the person cannot do it any other way, and you don't want them to do it that way?

If we look at Martin Luther King and Gandhi, we have two examples of people who, realistically speaking, had no other methods of changing the laws. If they were legislators, or if they had a reasonable chance of becoming legislators, then their situation would have been considerably different, and we may expect that they would have chosen the easier path and simply changed the unjust laws directly.

It is also interesting that your use of the term "cowardice" applies to almost the exact opposite set of people than it does with normal use of that term.

brighid

Jaime,

This statement struck me as rather poignant, and I feel it speaks to the heart of the snitching debate. I also think "snitching" should not be applied to all situations where one reports wrong doing to the authorities, or relevant parties.

I also feel there is a difference in reporting the truth, or at least one's actual and honest knowledge of a given situation and "snitching" on another person in order to gain personal benefit (either through lieing, stretching the truth or otherwise.)

I think Livius gave excellent examples of "snitching" and how unethical, immoral and harmful that is to the fabric of society. I also think others have given excellent examples of honest reporting, or how failing to report immoral and criminal behavior can hurt more then just those immediately affected by the silence.

I also do not think a friend is someone who would ask another to go along with, hide, or misrepresent his/her unethical or immoral behavior (and in certain cases illegal behavior.)

Brighid

long winded fool

If you disagree enough with a law, you will find a way to leave. Look at the Mexican people who simply stroll across the desert and climb over into The United States. You do bring up an interesting point though. If we imagine a society that makes up an entire planet, with absolutely no other society to go to, how can one ever leave? In this case, one is forced to disobey laws he feels are unjust since there is no alternative. Of course, he is commiting treason to his society, but this won't bother him if he finds the society unworthy of his membership. If he feels that his society provides him with shelter and food and desires to remain a member of the society and reap the benefits, he cannot disobey any of its laws without making himself a coward.

Then, unfortunately, you must obey laws that you don't want if you want to live in a society. I'm assuming you aren't claiming that you will be a criminal wherever you go.

The simple fact is that people do violate the law all of the time, but that does not mean that we live in anarchy. So your reasoning for why we must obey all laws fails.

Anarchy is the absence of law. A collectively disobeyed law is not a law. Obeying some laws and disobeying others sets a precedent that laws are subjective to the individual, thus undermining the power of the law to control the populus. If the law has no power to control the individuals subject to it, (whether they like it or not) then you have anarchy.

This is simply false. To give but one example, have you ever heard of the Roman Empire? Or do you imagine that several hundred years is not "long"? Or do you regard slavery as just?

Good question. It doesn't matter if I regard slavery as just, it only matters if the members of the society in which slavery is legal feel that it is just. If I lived during the Roman Empire, I'd like to think that I'd be courageous and refuse to be a member of that society instead of being a coward and paying taxes to a government which allows slavery, (though I honestly don't know if I have that much courage.) If most Romans feel slavery is just, then the society will survive. If a pro-slavery society popped up in the year 2003, most would consider it unjust and most would refuse to become a member, limiting its life-span by supplying it with no members, instead of giving it many members who refuse to obey law.

So, when a German, during WWII, refused military conscription, because he regarded it as an unjust war, and was consequently hanged, you imagine that man was "cowardly" for refusing to do what he believed to be wrong? You must have a very strange notion of what it means to be "cowardly".

Cowardly and irrational are pretty much synonymous with me. There is a subtle difference here in your analogy that my argument hangs on. It is irrational to expect your society to take care of you if you will not take care of it. The German refusing the draft and being hanged is cowardly if he expected to be a good Nazi and not kill Jews, (thereby expecting to remain a member of a society and to be exempt from any of its laws.) He is courageous if he simply refused to be a Nazi. (thereby refusing to be a member of a society and suffering the consequences.) "Draft dodging" can be courageous only as long as the draft dodger refuses to be a member of society. He can't have his cake and eat it too without being a coward. Ducking into a hole until your neighbors unjustly defeat the good guys and then coming out to continue to live along side them is cowardly.

You do not explain the "logical" problem with being a member of a society who does not obey all of the laws.

This is anti-social behavior. Anti-society is by definition detrimental to society. If you wish to live in a society, it is illogical to do something which undermines the very glue which keeps the society together. Contrary to popular belief, rules are not made to be broken. At least not in a functioning society of human beings.

I see that I was right in thinking you had a very deviant notion of "cowardice". Most of us use the term in a manner that suggests that the person acts through fear, though obviously that is not your meaning.

I think doing the irrational is acting out of fear 90% of the time. The other 10% of the time it is acting out of lust. My definition of cowardice is the same as most peoples'. I am just identifying a cowardly act that not many people realize stems from fear. The implications of everyone being individualistic and only obeying laws they agree with are weak and fluctuating societies with no real power and little order. This gives those willing to take advantage and willing to decieve great rewards and punishes those who wish to be honest and peaceful. All societies go this way because all members would rather ignore laws and still live there than leave for another society.

I see that you are not following your own definition of "cowardice" (see above). (In case this is unclear to you, civil disobedience is very different from just ignoring the law. Civil disobedience involves paying attention to what the law is, and willfully and (often) openly disobeying it, in order to draw attention to the unjust law. Previously, you defined "cowardice" as ignoring the law and remaining in the society, which means that one could not be committing civil disobedience.)

When I say "ignoring law" I mean willfully disobeying law. Ignoring a law that you are aware is in effect is willfully disobeying it. The motive is irrelevant.

One of the rather striking things about your comments is that you seem to fail to notice that many times in civil disobedience, the breaking of the law is the method used to change the law. If that is the only realistic option for someone to change the law, do you imagine that the law should not be changed, because the person cannot do it any other way, and you don't want them to do it that way?

If we look at Martin Luther King and Gandhi, we have two examples of people who, realistically speaking, had no other methods of changing the laws. If they were legislators, or if they had a reasonable chance of becoming legislators, then their situation would have been considerably different, and we may expect that they would have chosen the easier path and simply changed the unjust laws directly.


If the law cannot be changed democratically, then it's not worth changing. If the government of a society disallows the peaceful changing of its laws by the members of the society, the members ought to go live somewhere else. This is the ultimate pacifism. No war is needed. "Just" crimes as in civil disobedience and "just" wars as in revolutions still stem from the idea that "we don't like who runs the country right now, so we're going to kick them out and run it ourselves." This is identical to the Europeans' opinion of the Native Americans during colonization. We swept them under the carpet and declared our own laws over their land. To be truly anti-war and pacifistic is to say, "Let Hitler have Germany and all of Europe if he wants. He has no power if he has no members in his society." Definitely not practical given the deep-seated instinctual fears of the human race which allow them to be easily intimidated and controlled, but this is a viable way of eliminating societies which harm their members. If everyone just left when the governments became corrupt, corruption would never be rewarding to the dishonest and punishing to the innocent, and therefore corruption and dishonesty would be eliminated without the use of wars to kill the corrupt and the dishonest people, while leaving the society ripe to spawn more.

It is also interesting that your use of the term "cowardice" applies to almost the exact opposite set of people than it does with normal use of that term.

Very often the cowards are the ones who roar like lions and the courageous are the ones who remain silent. ('The cowardly lion.' What a great symbol of the human condition.) When I was younger I had a party one summer with a good friend who drank too much and passed out in my garage. My other friends wanted me to bring him inside, clean him up, and put him in a bed or at least on a couch under a blanket. I left him lying on the concrete in his soiled clothes until he woke up the next morning. Everyone thought I was a selfish jerk, but my friend never drank that much at a party again. Just like you often must be "cruel to be kind," doing the right thing despite being labelled a coward by the short-sighted is my definition of courage. "The right thing" becomes clear when one uses critical and objective thinking. It is never clear when fear and emotions rule your decision making process.

themistocles

Well said, long winded fool.

"Kings will be tyrants from policy when subjects are rebels from principle"....

99Percent

Great posts, long winded fool :notworthy

Personally I will "snitch" on real crimes and remain (or atleast try to remain) silent on consensual crimes.

A crimininal who commits real crimes (theft, murder, rape, etc) is one who can actually hurt me or my family in the future so it certainly deserves full "snitching". A person who commits a consensual crime is not hurting anybody and therefore I should mind my own business.

What frightens me is that I might also end up in jail if I don't report "illegal" activities of my neighbor such as if decides to grow some pot in his backyard. If a policeman comes knocking on my door and asks me if I know if my neighbor is growing pot in his backyard I will have no recourse but tell the truth. But is that snitching?

Its very shameful on a society such as the U.S. and most "civilized" countries that have legislated subjective morality making consensual crimes actually punishable. I find it repugnant that a person who is caught with a few ounces of mariguana goes right to jail next to rapists and murders.

Such is the tyranny of the majority

Calzaer

Jamie_L has hit the nail on the head, but I rather like how this discussion is going anyway.

This, to me, is the most critical piece of the current argument. Who decides which laws are unjust? Obviously not everyone thinks the same laws are unjust to the same degree. Should we make an official government committee to determine which laws are unjust and need not be followed?

Pyrrho

Then you obviously disagree with long winded fool, because, according to long winded fool, you are not supposed to pick and choose which laws you will obey and which ones you will not obey. According to long winded fool, you are a "coward" for not following ALL of the laws, or leaving the country.

According to long winded fool, what you are doing is "undermining the power of the law to control the populus", which he or she appears to regard as a bad thing.

Of course, following long winded fool's position, Martin Luther King and Gandhi are both cowards as well, so you are in good company.

Pyrrho

I am rather curious about something, and I was wondering if you, long winded fool, would indulge me in finding out something about how consistent you are about what you claim. I will presently confine myself to one primary question:

Do you always obey the speed limit, as well as all other traffic laws?

According to your stated standards, virtually everyone, if not everyone, who drives is a "coward".

themistocles

Presumably in a regular western society such as ours, debate and the public forum ostensibly decide. Personally, I support the legalization of pot, but the pro-medicinal argument seems both hokey and duplicitous (c'mon, you mean to tell me that medicinal purposes is the reason people are pushing for pot legalization? *coughbullcough*).

It seems the "pot isn't enough a societal damage or ill to warrant years in prison for its use" is a reasonable argument alone.

themistocles

Well, one might ask in response "are you suggesting that there should not be speed limits"?