Respecting the law.

[Just_me_Mike]

I guess I wonder a little sidetrack question in regard to the OP. Is it inevitable that sentient beings create laws? I mean I suppose even the animals have them to some degree.

Also, how closely does the root of our laws mimic what we find in nature with higher life forms?

 

[lunakilo]

I guess I wonder a little sidetrack question in regard to the OP. Is it inevitable that sentient beings create laws? I mean I suppose even the animals have them to some degree.

Also, how closely does the root of our laws mimic what we find in nature with higher life forms?

I would say yes, if the sentient beings are not solitary.
If they are not solitary they will form a socioty, and for a socioty to work you need some form of law.

A law is basically an agreement between 2 or more people on how to behave.
If you don't have such an agreement, and follow it (for the most part at least) socioty won't work.

 

[Kathryn]

No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.

When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.

In matters of style, swim with the current;
In matters of principle, stand like a rock.

What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance?

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add “within the limits of the law,” because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first.

Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty.

A free people [claim] their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.

The Greatest Thomas Jefferson quotes

Liberty is the soul's right to breathe and, when it cannot take a long breath, laws are girdled too tight. -- Rev Henry Beecher

As government regulations grow slowly, we become used to the harness. Habit is a powerful force, and we no longer feel as intensely as we once would have [the] constriction of our liberties that would have been utterly intolerable a mere half century ago. -- Robert Bork

Nothing is more despicable than respect based on fear. -- Albert Camus

 

[ninerbuff]

Everyone breaks the law................as soon as they get in their cars.

 

[Gharib]

I can see a potential problem with people who do not share you view on islamic law.

what do you mean?

Can a muslim respect mundane laws? I mean laws passed by a countries parlament.

so long as they do not contradict islamic law. for example, in australia you can't shoot a criminal if he forcefully enters your home, in islamic law it say one is abigated to use any force necessary against the intruder, now if someone entered my home, i would certainly kill him without hesitation, if then, australian law punishesme for it, no problem, they will have to answer for it on the day of judgement. maybe to you thats too long of a wait for justice isn't it? i personally would rather have justice done on the day of judgment than in my earthly life.

What if a law in a counrty conflicts with islamic law, should the law be ignored/broken? Or should you follow the law even if you find that the law is wrong?

maybe my above example answeres this too? if i were to follow such a law i would be sining against myself, and would have to be held accountable on the day of judgement.

 

[Madhuri]

Actually, if death results from self-defence, you won't be punished by Australian law. But if it cannot be shown that there was a real threat to your own life, then in the court of law the argument of self-defence would act as a partial defence but not necessarily get you completely off the hook.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Actually, if death results from self-defence, you won't be punished by Australian law. But if it cannot be shown that there was a real threat to your own life, then in the court of law the argument of self-defence would act as a partial defence but not necessarily get you completely off the hook.

Same in the states more or less...

 

[Alex_G]

What does it mean to respect the law?

Does respecting the law mean that you should not break the law?

Should you always respect the law?

If you disagree with a particular law, what should you do about it?
Try to change the law and if so how, or ignorer/break the law.

What if find a particular law morally wrong, should you still follow the law or should you break it?

I think the language used here is what’s interesting. 'Should you respect the law'.

I think that laws are made for a reason, and what needs to be respected, is the reasoning behind why the particular laws exist. The moral weight of what any one law says, is not validated by the mere fact that it is a law, as this would be an appeal to authority and a logical fallacy. A doctor is not automatically right on a certain health topic by virtue of his title, and similarly a law isn’t morally right just because it is a law.

As for what you should do, that will be at the hands of the autonomous being in question. I believe in doing what’s right, or striving to do what i think is right, and trust the law recognises that. By acting against a law, then you run the risk of punishment, and thus its something you have to decide for yourself.

Law needs to communicate with a society, get feedback and change accordingly to best fulfil its role in upholding and defending the way of life desired by its people.
It is a slow and difficult process to make change as an individual, and is unfortunately one of the difficulties seen still in modern day societies.

Just to reiterate, i don’t think its wrong to break the law, what’s wrong is the action taken or deed committed that is reasoned to be morally wrong in and of itself. The fact the law breaks at the same time is a sort of technicality.

Alex

 

[Mathematician]

I believe we could, with some tooth-pulling, draw a distinction between respecting the principle of law and laws. A conservative may hold a different principle of "necessary structure" than a liberal, but they both recognize the institutional requirement while individually opposed to existing laws. That said, one should always be selective about which laws they are willing to sacrifice in their habits as too much debauchery could very well lead one to undermine their own principles.

For example I'm highly supportive of the black market for certain recreational drug use as I object to treating pot smokers, ravers, and psychonauts as criminals, but you won't see me engaging with heroin or meth.

 

[darkendless]

Actually, if death results from self-defence, you won't be punished by Australian law. But if it cannot be shown that there was a real threat to your own life, then in the court of law the argument of self-defence would act as a partial defence but not necessarily get you completely off the hook.

Australian law is useless.

If someone is in my house and I shank them a few times I go to jail even though they're breaking an entering. They infringe my rights and I go to jail. I find it rather stupid, but understand that the law has to stop lunatics like myself killing people

Interestingly, I play golf and currently sit 2m from a set of golf clubs. If someone came into my house and I whacked them over the head with a golf club and killed them I could argue that I used the clubs in self defence. Strange in my opinion.

 

[Valjean]

I agree with Noaidi.
Laws are made by man. They reflect the social values of the day and the interests of the powerful. Even a casual review of history reveals countless ridiculous, oppressive and downright immoral laws. Why respect something so capricious and mercurial?

Would you have turned Anne Frank and her family in, in accordance with the law?

Conscience is the highest law. Written laws need be followed only when they're reasonable and just.

 

[Chisti]

I agree with Noaidi.
Laws are made by man. They reflect the social values of the day and the interests of the powerful. Even a casual review of history reveals countless ridiculous, oppressive and downright immoral laws. Why respect something so capricious and mercurial?

Would you have turned Anne Frank and her family in, in accordance with the law?

Conscience is the highest law. Written laws need be followed only when they're reasonable and just.

So I take it you're okay with Muslims protesting the ban on burqa?

 

[Valjean]

Is it reasonable and just? Is it oppressive or unfair?
Is it kind?

 

[Chisti]

Is it reasonable and just?
Is it kind?

What is?

 

[Valjean]

The Burqa ban.

Yes. I'm OK with a conscientious objection to anything.

 

[darkendless]

I agree with Noaidi.
Laws are made by man. They reflect the social values of the day and the interests of the powerful. Even a casual review of history reveals countless ridiculous, oppressive and downright immoral laws. Why respect something so capricious and mercurial?

Would you have turned Anne Frank and her family in, in accordance with the law?

Conscience is the highest law. Written laws need be followed only when they're reasonable and just.

But conscience brainwashed by religion is frightening.

 

[Gharib]

Australian law is useless.

best post of the thread, i agree 200%

but i think ozzies with your perspective are just the odd one here and there. not many share your perspective. as far as i know anyway.

 

[LuisDantas]

But conscience brainwashed by religion is frightening.

Yes it is. But what that means is that society must shake such people out of that brainwashing.

Laws won't help with that.

 

[Valjean]

I suspect most of the oppression fomented by the religious through history was the result of fear, hatred, insecurity and general authoritarianism, rather than individual moral stands (conscience).

Real concern for the welfare of the oppressed was a pious facade.

 

[Gharib]

why did the thread suddenly take a bing U-turn and started speaking badly about religion? weren't people of many faiths living peacefully under islamic rule up until and after the crusades?