Total Posts:57|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

disobedience to the law

I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 12:26:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 12:08:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
Hey guys I had a debate and I want everyoen to know coz I'm so damn important so I set up this topic but really its just so people look at my unsourced, weak debate!
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 12:47:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 12:08:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
Is disobedience to the law ever acceptable? For reference see the below debate which gets kinds grandiose.


http://www.debate.org...

While I personally hold to the belief that, while a law is in effect you are to obey it, even if you disagree with it and to try to change said law through logic, reason, and legal methods, not childish disobedience. However, that only works when others are open to reason and logic and provide and option to change the law. If it is a dictatorship or the law making side is not up to listening, then I support going a step or two further.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:11:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 12:08:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
Is disobedience to the law ever acceptable? For reference see the below debate which gets kinds grandiose.


http://www.debate.org...

That's what civil disobedience is about. Laws are set in place by human beings who are subject to error, and have egoes just like everyone else. I'm not saying challenge authority, but police are not "supposed" to be above the law.

Some law enforcement agencies think they have a mandate to dictate how they see fit
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:17:33 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Why should the law be respected anyways?

And who said challenging authority is a bad thing? There is no authority but myself. You can beat me into submission with guns and handcuffs, but that makes you a bully, not an authority.
"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
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:31:34 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
If you think it an immoral law I don't see it wrong to break it in secret, I just think you have a moral obligation to try to speak against it/get it changed.

Having "the Law" is morally important as it is the most practical method of instilling moral behavior.

B/C the law derives it's moral importance from it's ability to instill moral behavior, law which is itself is immoral is not morally important to follow.

Though if The Law is not followed it will likely not be as enforced, and if it ceases being enforced it ceases being a practical method of instilling moral behavior.

So for the sake of keeping the law's moral value one ought to try to openly challenge immoral laws (either through conversation or civil disobediance), but breaking an immoral law I don't think is immoral, though you should go to jail if you get caught (for the sake of the morally important system).
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:35:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:17:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why should the law be respected anyways?

And who said challenging authority is a bad thing? There is no authority but myself. You can beat me into submission with guns and handcuffs, but that makes you a bully, not an authority.

Actually, they just lock you away. And you can take your beliefs about there being no authority with you to your padded room.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:37:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:31:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If you think it an immoral law I don't see it wrong to break it in secret, I just think you have a moral obligation to try to speak against it/get it changed.

Having "the Law" is morally important as it is the most practical method of instilling moral behavior.

B/C the law derives it's moral importance from it's ability to instill moral behavior, law which is itself is immoral is not morally important to follow.

Though if The Law is not followed it will likely not be as enforced, and if it ceases being enforced it ceases being a practical method of instilling moral behavior.

So for the sake of keeping the law's moral value one ought to try to openly challenge immoral laws (either through conversation or civil disobedience), but breaking an immoral law I don't think is immoral, though you should go to jail if you get caught (for the sake of the morally important system).

I tend to agree, I just think that one should try the "conversation" before going to "civil disobedience" since civil disobedience can negatively impact your attempts to change the law.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:47:35 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
So youre against MLK and his peaceful demonstrations, against blacks sitting wherever they want, and you support segragation and all the Jim Crow laws? The law must be followed and never disobeyed right?
"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
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:51:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:47:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So youre against MLK and his peaceful demonstrations, against blacks sitting wherever they want, and you support segragation and all the Jim Crow laws? The law must be followed and never disobeyed right?

Looks like you didn't read what I said, try again.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:56:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:51:09 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/4/2010 1:47:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So youre against MLK and his peaceful demonstrations, against blacks sitting wherever they want, and you support segragation and all the Jim Crow laws? The law must be followed and never disobeyed right?

Looks like you didn't read what I said, try again.

You said civil disobedience is childish, yet that's exactly what got blacks their civil rights. MLK and Rosa Parks were just being childish.
"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
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 1:59:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Disobedience to the law is acceptable when your rights are being ignored. That is the entire purpose of human rights - to justify action against oppressive governments that do not respect its citizen's rights, because rights can be violated eve if no law is actually broken.

Now, how you go about deciding what is and isn't a human right is another matter completely.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 2:58:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:56:07 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
At 2/4/2010 1:51:09 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/4/2010 1:47:35 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
So youre against MLK and his peaceful demonstrations, against blacks sitting wherever they want, and you support segragation and all the Jim Crow laws? The law must be followed and never disobeyed right?

Looks like you didn't read what I said, try again.

You said civil disobedience is childish, yet that's exactly what got blacks their civil rights. MLK and Rosa Parks were just being childish.

Frist off...

"If it is a dictatorship or the law making side is not up to listening, then I support going a step or two further."

"I tend to agree, I just think that one should try the 'conversation' before going to 'civil disobedience'"

Second off... If I remember from studies, MLK jr organized marches and protests and speeches (he even meet with LBJ). Organized marches are not civil disobedience. The black panthers, on the other hand, are a different story. Plus at that time, the leadership in the south was not up for listening (as they hadn't for decades), ergo, it would be acceptable in my previously listed opinions.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Harlan
Posts: 1,880
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/4/2010 4:01:52 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Most people here probably already have, but for anyone who hasn't, Thoreau's essay about about Civil Disobedience is highly recommended (by me). A short and insightful pamphlet.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 10:59:17 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:17:33 PM, GeoLaureate8 wrote:
Why should the law be respected anyways?

And who said challenging authority is a bad thing? There is no authority but myself. You can beat me into submission with guns and handcuffs, but that makes you a bully, not an authority.

well said.
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 11:01:05 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:31:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If you think it an immoral law I don't see it wrong to break it in secret, I just think you have a moral obligation to try to speak against it/get it changed.

Having "the Law" is morally important as it is the most practical method of instilling moral behavior.

Who decides what is moral and ethical?

B/C the law derives it's moral importance from it's ability to instill moral behavior, law which is itself is immoral is not morally important to follow.

Though if The Law is not followed it will likely not be as enforced, and if it ceases being enforced it ceases being a practical method of instilling moral behavior.

So for the sake of keeping the law's moral value one ought to try to openly challenge immoral laws (either through conversation or civil disobediance), but breaking an immoral law I don't think is immoral, though you should go to jail if you get caught (for the sake of the morally important system).

Again who decides what is moral, and immoral?
kelly224
Posts: 952
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 11:03:02 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:37:59 PM, OreEle wrote:
At 2/4/2010 1:31:34 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
If you think it an immoral law I don't see it wrong to break it in secret, I just think you have a moral obligation to try to speak against it/get it changed.

Having "the Law" is morally important as it is the most practical method of instilling moral behavior.

B/C the law derives it's moral importance from it's ability to instill moral behavior, law which is itself is immoral is not morally important to follow.

Though if The Law is not followed it will likely not be as enforced, and if it ceases being enforced it ceases being a practical method of instilling moral behavior.

So for the sake of keeping the law's moral value one ought to try to openly challenge immoral laws (either through conversation or civil disobedience), but breaking an immoral law I don't think is immoral, though you should go to jail if you get caught (for the sake of the morally important system).

I tend to agree, I just think that one should try the "conversation" before going to "civil disobedience" since civil disobedience can negatively impact your attempts to change the law.

I think that civil disobedience is a last resort in most cases. People mobilize when all avenues have been exhausted otherwise.
curious18
Posts: 98
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 12:06:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Wait, what is "civil disobedience"? Are we talking about marching and forming protests, which are legal? Are we talking about simply ignoring laws that we don't agree with, on an individual scale? Are we talking about organizing resistance to actually fight against the police/government?
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:07:56 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 11:01:05 AM, kelly224 wrote:

Again who decides what is moral, and immoral?

Tough question, in the practical case of Democracy, that would be the people through political representatives.

Who decides what ought to happen and what rights you should have: the people through democracy and through laws.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 3:09:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/5/2010 12:06:46 PM, curious18 wrote:
Wait, what is "civil disobedience"? Are we talking about marching and forming protests, which are legal? Are we talking about simply ignoring laws that we don't agree with, on an individual scale? Are we talking about organizing resistance to actually fight against the police/government?

By civil disobedience I mean breaking unjust laws in public to get people to become fully aware of the situation, and see the supposedly unjust law for what it is.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 8:09:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 12:08:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
Is disobedience to the law ever acceptable? For reference see the below debate which gets kinds grandiose.


http://www.debate.org...

yes, unless you can prove that the law in infallible. personally, for example, i am extremely glad that many northerners (though not enough) ignored the fugitive slave act of 1850 and continued to harbor their fellow human beings.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 8:10:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 12:26:51 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
At 2/4/2010 12:08:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
Hey guys I had a debate and I want everyoen to know coz I'm so damn important so I set up this topic but really its just so people look at my unsourced, weak debate!

lol you sure do love putting words in other people's mouths
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/5/2010 8:17:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 12:08:18 PM, Kahvan wrote:
Is disobedience to the law ever acceptable? For reference see the below debate which gets kinds grandiose.


http://www.debate.org...

Of course it can be acceptable.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
PervRat
Posts: 963
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/8/2010 12:19:26 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
I had gay sex in Texas before its sodomy law was repealed.

No, I didn't do it in public ... but I did get shot at for being gay by neighors.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 6:02:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/4/2010 1:59:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
Disobedience to the law is acceptable when your rights are being ignored. That is the entire purpose of human rights - to justify action against oppressive governments that do not respect its citizen's rights, because rights can be violated eve if no law is actually broken.

Now, how you go about deciding what is and isn't a human right is another matter completely.

What would you consider the best way to make sure human rights aren't infringed? What system do you think would be "fair" to everyone?
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 6:08:02 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2010 6:02:09 PM, jharry wrote:
What would you consider the best way to make sure human rights aren't infringed? What system do you think would be "fair" to everyone?

Liberal democracy. The reason why is because the idea of liberal democracy was built on the very idea of civil and human rights. It allows for the majority to have its power, but guarantees the rights of individuals - and therefore the minority - even in the face of majority opposition. Because by focusing on the rights of an individual over the rights of a collective, you're enabling the members of any and all groups to secure their rights. To simply if, by spreading out the application of rights to the many individuals, you are in fact protecting both the majority from the minority, and the minority from the majority.

It's a little complicated to explain, I guess.
jharry
Posts: 4,984
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 6:10:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2010 6:08:02 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 2/12/2010 6:02:09 PM, jharry wrote:
What would you consider the best way to make sure human rights aren't infringed? What system do you think would be "fair" to everyone?

Liberal democracy. The reason why is because the idea of liberal democracy was built on the very idea of civil and human rights. It allows for the majority to have its power, but guarantees the rights of individuals - and therefore the minority - even in the face of majority opposition. Because by focusing on the rights of an individual over the rights of a collective, you're enabling the members of any and all groups to secure their rights. To simply if, by spreading out the application of rights to the many individuals, you are in fact protecting both the majority from the minority, and the minority from the majority.

It's a little complicated to explain, I guess.

Very. Could you give an example? Any issue would be fine, I think. Let's see what you choose.
In nomine Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti. Amen
Xer
Posts: 7,776
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/12/2010 6:13:12 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 2/12/2010 6:10:55 PM, jharry wrote:
Very. Could you give an example? Any issue would be fine, I think. Let's see what you choose.

US, Canada, pretty much all Western European countries, Australia.