Total Posts:34|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Invisiblity and law

Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 2:58:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

What's the only reason to respect the law?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 2:59:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 2:49:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

Why would it not be?

What's the only reason to respect the law?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:01:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 2:58:44 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Morally it's the right thing to do.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:04:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 2:59:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:49:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

Why would it not be?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Because it is rational . . .
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:07:10 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:04:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:59:12 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:49:21 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

Why would it not be?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Because it is rational . . .

It is rational for you NOW to respect the law as otherwise you'll be .... dealt with accordingly.

But if you are invisible...
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:19:04 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

Yes.

Abiding laws is to maintain a functional relationship with society which, unless you're invisible because you're a ghost, you still need.

As a rational human being, perhaps you can make this distinction even if you no longer need them, given you can still sympathize or empathize with society's/humanity's interests.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:23:21 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

Yes.

Abiding laws is to maintain a functional relationship with society which, unless you're invisible because you're a ghost, you still need.

So why do people commit crimes then? Do they not need a functional relationship with society, or are they devoid of it when they commit crimes?

As a rational human being, perhaps you can make this distinction even if you no longer need them, given you can still sympathize or empathize with society's/humanity's interests.

Criminals are not rational human beings then?
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:25:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:01:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:58:44 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Morally it's the right thing to do.

Lolundergroundrailroadwasimmoral.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:36:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:25:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:01:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:58:44 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Morally it's the right thing to do.

Lolundergroundrailroadwasimmoral.

to be fair, when i think of law-abiding citizen, I think of someone who doesn't commit aggression against another. Not someone who doesn't engage in prostitution and drugs for fun.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:37:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:36:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:25:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:01:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:58:44 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Morally it's the right thing to do.

Lolundergroundrailroadwasimmoral.

to be fair, when i think of law-abiding citizen, I think of someone who doesn't commit aggression against another. Not someone who doesn't engage in prostitution and drugs for fun.

Ah.
I tend to consider what, y'know, words mean.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:38:55 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How are we defining rational? If we define it in a sociopathic sense as the relentless pursuit of self interest to the utmost extent in a manner that avoids consequences then yes, it may become more rational. If we define it in a more moral universalistic sense then no.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:40:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:36:22 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:25:16 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:01:48 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:58:44 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

What's the only reason to respect the law?

Morally it's the right thing to do.

Lolundergroundrailroadwasimmoral.

to be fair, when i think of law-abiding citizen, I think of someone who doesn't commit aggression against another. Not someone who doesn't engage in prostitution and drugs for fun.

To be honest, when I posted I was thinking stuff like murder and theft.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:41:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:38:55 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How are we defining rational? If we define it in a sociopathic sense as the relentless pursuit of self interest to the utmost extent in a manner that avoids consequences then yes, it may become more rational. If we define it in a more moral universalistic sense then no.

I'm defining rational as Ragnar tends to define it, when he puts humans in a separate class from all other earthly things, living or otherwise.
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:45:30 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:41:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:38:55 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How are we defining rational? If we define it in a sociopathic sense as the relentless pursuit of self interest to the utmost extent in a manner that avoids consequences then yes, it may become more rational. If we define it in a more moral universalistic sense then no.

I'm defining rational as Ragnar tends to define it, when he puts humans in a separate class from all other earthly things, living or otherwise.

Well then yes, it obviously does change the possibility of you getting caught. I would hardly call that conception "rational" though nor would I believe the mainstream philosophical community.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 3:56:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:23:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:19:04 PM, Ren wrote:
At 1/26/2012 2:48:21 PM, Indophile wrote:
Is it rational to be law-abiding if you can become invisible?

Yes.

Abiding laws is to maintain a functional relationship with society which, unless you're invisible because you're a ghost, you still need.

So why do people commit crimes then? Do they not need a functional relationship with society, or are they devoid of it when they commit crimes?

Depends on the crime. Regarding those that generate victims or live by taking resources without providing any in return, yes. They are parasites.

As a rational human being, perhaps you can make this distinction even if you no longer need them, given you can still sympathize or empathize with society's/humanity's interests.

Criminals are not rational human beings then?

Not those described above, no.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 4:15:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that, when one is invisible, one's corneas also are, and, therefore, are incapable of capturing light. You would be blind.

This IS interesting, though...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 4:19:49 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 4:15:38 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that, when one is invisible, one's corneas also are, and, therefore, are incapable of capturing light. You would be blind.

This IS interesting, though...

I have honestly never thought of that, LOL.
Logic_on_rails
Posts: 2,445
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 4:29:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 4:15:38 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that, when one is invisible, one's corneas also are, and, therefore, are incapable of capturing light. You would be blind.

This IS interesting, though...

Interesting point, although perhaps one could somehow replicate the signals sent to the brain that give us an idea of what's around us and such.

On the topic as a whole, being invisible only helps you evade the law to a certain extent (read something like The Invisible Man by H.G.Wells) , so it's still in your interest to be law abiding. Also, heat sensors could detect an invisible person. Basically, if you have an interest in not going to jail then don't break the law even if invisible.
"Tis not in mortals to command success
But we"ll do more, Sempronius, we"ll deserve it
days3331
Posts: 9
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 4:48:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
It depends.

Is abiding laws harder than not following them? If it is, it would be completely irrational to be invisible and still following laws because the whole reason we fall in line is because we don't want to be caught. If you're invisible, there is no recognition involved and hence, no one can catch you for your crimes. So why would you go through the trouble of following laws when it's easier to not and get away with it?
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 4:56:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
No one seems to understand this: law =/= morality.

Many laws are unjust and don't coincide with morality. So if youre invisible, you don't need to follow the law, but you should still be moral.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:26:44 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 4:15:38 PM, UnStupendousMan wrote:
I'm surprised that no one has brought up the fact that, when one is invisible, one's corneas also are, and, therefore, are incapable of capturing light. You would be blind.

This IS interesting, though...

Not necessarily at all.

He didn't stipulate that your body doesn't naturally interact with light, so I figured it was a perception-based question rather than an altered-reality question.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:30:52 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
On this note, I've noticed a very strange phenomenon lately.

There are enormous things happening in the scientific world. Like, unimaginably enormous.

Due to our ignorant and greed-based global economy, we live in a state of ignorance. Human advancement is to the point that I think it's safe to say we've transcended the science fiction that continues to enamor us.

But, I've been trying to my hardest to keep up with this shtt, and it's left me in a general state of tentative wonderment. I mean, this shtt can't stay a secret forever. Nonetheless, when I reveal this information (whether here, Facebook, whatever), people are generally like "meh" and just continue their day-to-day as though nothing'd changed.

This is extremely confusing to me.

We have invisibility suits, we can create synthetic life, a 17 year old may have cured cancer and not only do replicators exist, they're becoming an industry.

Hello. Wtf.
UnStupendousMan
Posts: 3,475
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:42:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 5:30:52 PM, Ren wrote:
On this note, I've noticed a very strange phenomenon lately.

There are enormous things happening in the scientific world. Like, unimaginably enormous.

Due to our ignorant and greed-based global economy, we live in a state of ignorance. Human advancement is to the point that I think it's safe to say we've transcended the science fiction that continues to enamor us.

But, I've been trying to my hardest to keep up with this shtt, and it's left me in a general state of tentative wonderment. I mean, this shtt can't stay a secret forever. Nonetheless, when I reveal this information (whether here, Facebook, whatever), people are generally like "meh" and just continue their day-to-day as though nothing'd changed.

This is extremely confusing to me.

We have invisibility suits, we can create synthetic life, a 17 year old may have cured cancer and not only do replicators exist, they're becoming an industry.

Hello. Wtf.

I'd like to see a separate thread on this; I don't want this one derailed.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 5:49:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Sneak up to a nun while she is alone, tell her that she has been chosen to birth a chosen child or something. Do naughty things to her, and see what happens in the future.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 6:37:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 3:41:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:38:55 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How are we defining rational? If we define it in a sociopathic sense as the relentless pursuit of self interest to the utmost extent in a manner that avoids consequences then yes, it may become more rational. If we define it in a more moral universalistic sense then no.

I'm defining rational as Ragnar tends to define it, when he puts humans in a separate class from all other earthly things, living or otherwise.

Humans are defined as rational animals, rational can't then be defined as humans. And by humans here I don't mean homo sapiens, I just mean rational animals. The fact that we can't find any non-homo-sapien rational animals on Earth doesn't make that an essential trait of rational animals, there could conceivably be rational animals somewhere else in reality of a different biological species and they would be "human" under this meaning.. Rationality (as opposed to nonrationality, not as opposed to irrationality which opposes a different meaning of rationality as optimal goal pursuit) is the ability to create and operate upon concepts.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 6:38:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 4:56:19 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
No one seems to understand this: law =/= morality.

Someone hasn't read the thread if they claim no one seems to understand it.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Indophile
Posts: 1,414
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/26/2012 6:50:51 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 1/26/2012 6:37:17 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:41:14 PM, Indophile wrote:
At 1/26/2012 3:38:55 PM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
How are we defining rational? If we define it in a sociopathic sense as the relentless pursuit of self interest to the utmost extent in a manner that avoids consequences then yes, it may become more rational. If we define it in a more moral universalistic sense then no.

I'm defining rational as Ragnar tends to define it, when he puts humans in a separate class from all other earthly things, living or otherwise.

Humans are defined as rational animals, rational can't then be defined as humans. And by humans here I don't mean homo sapiens, I just mean rational animals. The fact that we can't find any non-homo-sapien rational animals on Earth doesn't make that an essential trait of rational animals, there could conceivably be rational animals somewhere else in reality of a different biological species and they would be "human" under this meaning.. Rationality (as opposed to nonrationality, not as opposed to irrationality which opposes a different meaning of rationality as optimal goal pursuit) is the ability to create and operate upon concepts.

I believe I mentioned "earthly" in there somewhere.

The fact that we can't find any non-homo-sapien rational animals on Earth would mean that rational can be defined as humans :)
You will say that I don't really know you
And it will be true.