[Nightsun]

Well ethics, morality and law are all different things. If all people have a "right" ethics, laws will be useless, but you need a wolf to gather the sheeps.

[Scatterbrane]

	Originally Posted by Nikita
	You're assuming both that the road in question be always deserted, and also the absence of human error.

Do you wish to replace applied ethics entirely with normative ethics?

[Nikita]

	Originally Posted by Scatterbrane To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you wish to replace applied ethics entirely with normative ethics?

I want reality to be considered in critique of law, with actual workable solutions offered to replace the laws people are whining about. People can theorize all they want, but if they ignore reality, then they're just digging themselves into holes that have no turnabouts and no exits.

[Lord Shadowbane]

	Originally Posted by Synchronicity To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This is the difference between morality and legality....Law and morality frequently overlap, but morals are unique to the individual while laws are applied the same to everyone (in theory, at least).

I'd say that in a way, laws are supposed to work for people without a moral code as a moral code. It gives them something to follow that is generally agreed upon. That may well be how laws started, actually. I don't know about that, though. Come to think of it, if all laws are supposed to be based off of a common moral code for the benefit of all, why do we disagree with laws sometimes? It'd be because our morals require different things in different circumstances, so I suppose the law should be like that too, yes? I'm sure it could be difficult to rework the law in such a way. I know laws are different in many parts of the world. I'm in the us, and laws of course also differ by state. Some laws seem pointless. Is there anywhere where there is a law saying that if you run a stop sign in the middle of nowhere it's okay? (Only counts if it's otherwise not okay.) Maybe someone knows the answer to that. Making conditional laws would be difficult and humans err far too often, so I understand that everyone is supposed to follow laws. The law can't assume that it's okay for person a to run the sign because person a knows to look around and wasn't drunk or something or that person b shouldn't run the sign because person b was drunk or stressed or something. They're guidelines for us, placed in front of us understandably. While they may limit what we can do, we can be thankful in that they essentially limit what others can do to us accidentally. (At least sometimes.) I'd rather go out of my way a bit to follow some common sense law so that someone without common sense can be arrested and at least temporarily removed from society if they don't have the kind of common sense one needs to keep themselves and others safe.
Sorry for the novel.

[Rudy]

	Originally Posted by Nikita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You're assuming both that the road in question be always deserted, and also the absence of human error. To approach legal questions with your viewpoint disregards reality. If you want your view to be made into law, how do you write that law?

I don't want the law to be changed on this point, for exactly the reasons you give. I don't think that morality and legality should always be the same, nor that we should always try and make them the same. Legality needs to stand firm, morality can bend.

To take an extreme example, I can think of situations where I would consider vigilante justice to be moral, but I'd never want it to be legal. The illegality of it provides a deterrent that ensures that such vigilantism will not happen for trivial reasons, for fear of the consequences.

[Geminii]

	Originally Posted by Synamon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, I don't download movies/songs/software illegally. Would you like it if someone was stealing from you?

I'm always curious about the equating of these two concepts.

Assume I have a button on my desk. When I press it, I instantly receive a copy of every mass-produced thing you own. Your car. Your whitegoods. Your entertainment system. Your computer (with only the software you originally bought it with, though).

Your own possessions will not alter in the slightest. You will never be able to tell if I have pressed this button or not.

Am I a thief?

[TheLastMohican]

	Originally Posted by Nikita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	So, no act should be illegal unless it produces a victim? What if an act, like in the situation above, produces no victims in one instance, but produces them in others? How do you take a single action and say that it is only sometimes a crime?

Your definition of "single action" matters a lot here. Considering the running of a stop sign a single action might be excessively general. How about separating the running of a stop sign in a place like the salt flats from the running of a stop sign on a winding mountain road?

[miyukisama]

This reminds me of kingdom of heavens. Just think of all the people who would have lived if that guy had simply killed the soon to be king.

The end justifies the mediums. If I'm 100% sure something is right, and I know it's something worth doing, no authority will stop me from doing it.

I guess that's what makes my parents so worried I'll end up becoming a revolutionary leader who dies trying. XD

[jonam87]

Every thing you do comes down to one thing, your ability to reason and decide. Simply because something is illegal does not make it wrong or "bad". There is always a right choice unless the options are on equal footing as far as repercussions. And just because something is the right choice or the best choice does not have to mean it is necessarily good but the correct choice still.

The stop sign law is probably in its best form when a cop doesn't pull you over when you blow through one when the roads are clear of other drivers, but we know that the opposite sometimes happens. It is designed to clean up and organize a small but busy four way intersection, so when there is no danger it would seem apparent that its not infringing on another persons rights by passing through it when there are no cars on the road.

So it all depends on what law you are breaking.
An act such as denting someones car when they're not around warrants a more responsible reaction. Think if it was your car, would you not want the persons information? Laws are flawed, blindly obeying them would be an insult to your human intelligence. Laws are necessary for civilization but there is a line that is not to be crossed, and in our day in age, we have overstepped our bounds by a long shot.

[Tough Love]

MY veiw on it is that there are certain things which definately need laws within our society. Because people all think differently and what matters to me may not matter to you, 'fences' are created in the form of laws so as that there is hardly a chance of one breaking the big one.

Maybe.

Sorry if that isnt understandable.

[UMDRevan]

Breaking the law is fine if it:

1) is a lot of fun
2) involves guns
3) topples a government
4) benefits me

[ya lyublyu tebya]

I don't think there's anything wrong with running a stop sign if there's absolutely no one around and hasn't been for a while. If you haven't seen a car in either direction in a mile or two, then don't see anyone coming anywhere, go ahead.

If I dented someone's care, I'd probably feel so bad that I'd stay and wait for the person.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I have guilt issues from people having mistreated me so much. ...Wow, looking back at that, I'm thinkin' it's a really good thing that I can't drive.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


[HIDE="victimless~"]I pick my nose when no one's around.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Come and get me, coppers.[/HIDE]

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by Mandolin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Do you consider the law something to be perfectly obeyed even when in reality the situation is that there is no consequence or reason not to?

No. I vote they specify violence laws. For example - if someone pulls a knife on you(and threatens you), and you kill them, you shouldn't be held liable at all.

[Elena]

	Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No. I vote they specify violence laws. For example - if someone pulls a knife on you(and threatens you), and you kill them, you shouldn't be held liable at all.

What if there is no proof, such as witnesses or CCTV to show he/she threated you?

[rufsketch1]

	Originally Posted by Synamon To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	No, I don't download movies/songs/software illegally. Would you like it if someone was stealing from you?

I do download movies/songs/software, would you mind if someone wouldn't let you see what they've made? It's like saying "I know a seeecreeeeet" but I won't tell you unless you pay me!

I pay for the movies/music/software after I've decided they're worth paying for. I'm not going to pay for something shitty. Most movies and songs are things you'd have to pay me to watch or listen to.

I have a lot of respect for street performers. "Pay me if you like it".

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 06:30 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Cosmo To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I do not support the death penalty. The way I see it, your existence is only what you make of your few short years in the sun. Depriving someone else of life is a terrible thing, certainly, but we are doing that terrible thing ourselves when we implement the death penalty. Plus, executing someone implies that they are somehow damaged irreparably, as if there were no reconditioning or rehabilitation that could return them to society. I just don't buy it.

Are you a psychologist? It's fairly well established that there's no hope for rehabilitating psychopaths. It's genetic.

---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 06:34 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Geminii To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I'm always curious about the equating of these two concepts. Assume I have a button on my desk. When I press it, I instantly receive a copy of every mass-produced thing you own. Your car. Your whitegoods. Your entertainment system. Your computer (with only the software you originally bought it with, though). Your own possessions will not alter in the slightest. You will never be able to tell if I have pressed this button or not. Am I a thief?

Yes, because they made those things especially so that they could rip you off each time they were copied. And now you come along and do it for free. How dare you?!

[seeyouatx]

The law is going to be there to punish you regardless...if you get caught. I'm more than willing to speed or run a stop sign so long as I'm not putting anyone else in danger (i.e. making sure there aren't other cars at the intersection). If I were to be caught running that stop sign, I would accept the consequences of my actions.

However, when it comes to acts of violence, I think the law is not quite as flexible from a moral point of view.

Law is a necessary aspect of society. Without it, we would all live according to our own self-interests, causing society to collapse. They have their place, but that doesn't make all of them correct in every situation (morally speaking). If a child is sick and the parents cannot afford the medication and they steal it instead, I don't see that as inherently wrong.

Law does not equal right or moral, and just because the law has been broken does not mean that the action was wrong or immoral. It's very situation-dependent.

[gecko]

	Originally Posted by Elena To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	What if there is no proof, such as witnesses or CCTV to show he/she threated you?

There is often no proof. However, those that use such methods often have criminal records, which would play my favor.

In any case - if anyone threatens to kill you, and you believe them - are you saying it is necessary to wait for them to strike you? I am assuming you would not be against this if they pulled a gun? Knives are deadly too you know.

Basically, if anyone seriously threatens your life on the street without provocation(think getting robbed), you should be entitled to defend your life as effectively as you know how - which is: killing them or incapacitating them so that your life is no longer in jeopardy. If someone holds a knife or gun to me and demands my money, I will most likely end up giving it to them. But if there is a fair chance I can overpower the person, I will certainly attempt to do so as I am not willing to place my life in the hands of an unstable aggressor.

Ghetto, militant thugs often use fear and threat of significant force to get what they want. I feel it is morally repugnant to back down from such - a child can pull the trigger too. Basically, they are communicating: I can hurt you, so you act as I say you should. I am saying: you are putting my life at risk, and are thus forfeiting your own right to yours.

[Elena]

Originally Posted by gecko To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

There is often no proof. However, those that use such methods often have criminal records, which would play my favor. In any case - if anyone threatens to kill you, and you believe them - are you saying it is necessary to wait for them to strike you? I am assuming you would not be against this if they pulled a gun? Knives are deadly too you know. Basically, if anyone seriously threatens your life on the street without provocation(think getting robbed), you should be entitled to defend your life as effectively as you know how - which is: killing them or incapacitating them so that your life is no longer in jeopardy. If someone holds a knife or gun to me and demands my money, I will most likely end up giving it to them. But if there is a fair chance I can overpower the person, I will certainly attempt to do so as I am not willing to place my life in the hands of an unstable aggressor.

Yes, I do know knifes are just as deadly, worse even, I would have no problem in defending myself before they struck/shot/whatever at me.
I'm am just wonder if you have a criminal record by chance, you could be put away for something being twisted in to what it is not, such as you were robbing him/her instead of visa versa

[Geminii]

	Originally Posted by rufsketch1 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	---------- Post added 02-23-2010 at 06:34 PM ---------- Yes, because they made those things especially so that they could rip you off each time they were copied. And now you come along and do it for free. How dare you?!

Ah, but you don't know if I actually HAVE pressed the 'copy' button or not. It's a Schroedinger question. Am I a thief simply for having the capability to do so, and am I a thief if there is literally no way for you to distinguish between me pressing the button and me not pressing the button?

In many places it would not actually be illegal for me to go procure suitable materials and build an exact replica of something you own (things like car licensing issues aside). Even if you'd personally created the design of a product, then I could recreate it all I liked, as long as I didn't sell the copy to anyone else or try to pass it off as one you built.

The magic copy button thing above just automates that process. Theoretically, I could buy a chunk of vacant land next to your million-dollar mansion, press the button, and get a free replica of your house and everything in it in two seconds. As long as I got new plates for the car(s) I copied from you, changed the house numbers, and paid my bills and taxes, I wouldn't be breaking any laws. (As long as I remembered not to sell any of the copied stuff.)

Would I be a criminal, given that nothing you own had been stolen (or even altered at all) and I was not profiting from or distributing any copies of your original work(s)?

[Grimace]

Some laws are practical, and I tend to obey them. But things like drug laws are just ridiculous in most cases (Especially in the USA, though I live in Canada). But impractical laws, like jaywalking (I'm not going to cross the street if I will be hit by a car) are just a big joke to me.

Laws are more like guidelines to my decision making process. If they fail my test of whether they work and are reasonable, then they are tossed away just like anything else stupid and nonsensical. I don't play favorites with bad ideas.