Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

Tangent

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

But... but no one even drew a strict parallel between lawbreaking and bad-doing.

You did?

How does following the law give bad guys a free pass?

I don't understand.
I am so confused right now. Can you spell out the connection?

[Darvi]

Yeah, but "doing the right thing" isn't part of the job description.

Doing so could easily cause more harm than good.

This. Mostly because everybody has a different idea of what's the right thing.

Wait did I just advocate moral relativism? o_O

[lorb]

Ok. I'll try to be a little more detailed about what i actually am trying to argue here so we can see on what points we can agree or agree to disagree.

1.) "Law" is a set of rules made and enforced by the government and it's institutions.
2.) Other sets of rules exist. (be they rooted in religion, ethics, philosophy or whatever ...)
2a.) some of them apply to every human (and by that cops)
3.) They (law and the rules from point 2) can conflict.
4.) Sometimes the rules from number 2 should be given priority over law. In that case the right thing to do is to break/not follow the law.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Very few people are disputing the conflict between morality and legality, but cops are firmly in a position where they can only avoid abuse by being on the side of legality.

[kaijyuu]

Sometimes the rules from number 2 should be given priority over law. In that case the right thing to do is to break/not follow the law.

Here's where the problems with that lie:


The police are there to enforce rules other people made. Not rules they made. If an individual police officer decides to enforce a law they made up, or decides to forgo enforcing a law they disagree with, then big problems can arise.

Imagine a police officer who's racist. In their mind, the "right" thing to do is something along the lines of what the KKK advocates. So, when they come across a hate crime, they might ignore it with the excuse of "I'm doing the right thing, not what the law says" and under your logic they'd be entirely justified.


Now you could argue objective morality to counter that, but the fact of reality is everyone has their own system of morality. There is no authority to decide what is truly "right and wrong," so there would be no way to objectively determine whether a police officer breaking the law for moral reasons would be justified or not. If we're going by popular vote about morality, that's what the laws are ideally supposed to already represent. We already tried going by what God says, and I dearly hope you're not advocating yourself or any other individual person to be the absolute authority on morality, so...


A police officer should follow the law to the letter. If the law is corrupt, then it needs to be changed (and said officer has just as much power to change it as you do).

[Leafsnail]

...Dude. I'm completely with the police on that one. If a policeman aren't allowed to check up on you when your carrying of a gun makes people scared, then something is wrong with your laws.

Perhaps you missed it, but what the guy in that video was doing is completely legal in the United States and what the cop was doing was an illegal stop and seizure. Regardless of whether or not you agree with US gun law, that's the situation in the eyes of the law.

I guess, but... frankly it's not a huge deal.  I definitely can't go progressive rage over it because noone was seriously harmed, and I don't agree with the law not being followed in the first place.  The cop and the people who reported a guy with a gun seemed to be mistaken over a point of law (I really can't see any evidence that this is part of a vigilante campaign or anything) and he responded very politely and calmly to the guy being a raging douchebag about it.  The issue could probably be settled by informing the police (and general public) in the area of how the law actually is so they can go about changing it.

[lorb]

Sometimes the rules from number 2 should be given priority over law. In that case the right thing to do is to break/not follow the law.

Here's where the problems with that lie:

The police are there to enforce rules other people made. Not rules they made. If an individual police officer decides to enforce a law they made up, or decides to forgo enforcing a law they disagree with, then big problems can arise.

Imagine a police officer who's racist. In their mind, the "right" thing to do is something along the lines of what the KKK advocates. So, when they come across a hate crime, they might ignore it with the excuse of "I'm doing the right thing, not what the law says" and under your logic they'd be entirely justified.

Now you could argue objective morality to counter that, but the fact of reality is everyone has their own system of morality. There is no authority to decide what is truly "right and wrong," so there would be no way to objectively determine whether a police officer breaking the law for moral reasons would be justified or not. If we're going by popular vote about morality, that's what the laws are ideally supposed to already represent. We already tried going by what God says, and I dearly hope you're not advocating yourself or any other individual person to be the absolute authority on morality, so...

A police officer should follow the law to the letter. If the law is corrupt, then it needs to be changed (and said officer has just as much power to change it as you do).

I will not be able to argue against that and it is extraordinary hard to avoid the naturalistic fallacy but i will try to at least defend a somewhat weaker position of what i believe to be correct. civil disobedience is never wrong if the person breaking a law does so under the following circumstances:

• he/she is not personally gaining from it
• it is public
• he/she does it in a way or acts in a way that makes it conceivable for the majority that he/she is acting out of a perceived moral duty
• he/she does not resist being legally charged for it

this should ensure that the ultimate goal (or at least part of it) of the breaking of the law is to be a signal to those that make the law or are responsible for it (the majority) that something is amiss and should be changed

edit: i also believe that objective morality exists and that ethical truths can in fact be established/discovered by means of discourse.

edit2: also pointing to my signature i kind of feel the need to install a package for english spellchecking. please bear with my english

[MetalSlimeHunt]

...Dude. I'm completely with the police on that one. If a policeman aren't allowed to check up on you when your carrying of a gun makes people scared, then something is wrong with your laws.

Perhaps you missed it, but what the guy in that video was doing is completely legal in the United States and what the cop was doing was an illegal stop and seizure. Regardless of whether or not you agree with US gun law, that's the situation in the eyes of the law.

I guess, but... frankly it's not a huge deal.  I definitely can't go progressive rage over it because noone was seriously harmed, and I don't agree with the law not being followed in the first place.  The cop and the people who reported a guy with a gun seemed to be mistaken over a point of law (I really can't see any evidence that this is part of a vigilante campaign or anything) and he responded very politely and calmly to the guy being a raging douchebag about it.  The issue could probably be settled by informing the police (and general public) in the area of how the law actually is so they can go about changing it.

The guy wasn't being a raging douchbag. The cop detained him illegally and seized his property illegally, the guy cited the law that makes that illegal and refused to identify himself under another legal precedent, and the cop rightfully gave him his gun and allowed him to go on his way.

[Bauglir]

It may be right to violate the law, but never in one's capacity as a police officer. There are situations where that job takes a backseat to morality (which is what "then you stop being an officer" means), but I'd argue that if the situation is ambiguous (as it is here), acting in accordance with the law is the correct procedure. Using legal authority to enforce one's own definition of morality is a problem and not really an acceptable precedent, since precedent actually matters in law and slippery slopes are, as a consequence, not fallacious.

[Leafsnail]

The guy wasn't being a raging douchbag. The cop detained him illegally and seized his property illegally, the guy cited the law that makes that illegal and refused to identify himself under another legal precedent, and the cop rightfully gave him his gun and allowed him to go on his way.

Don't you keep telling us not to talk to cops or try to act as your own attorney in these situations?  I don't see how shouting rulings (which as far as the cop is concerned could have just been made up by you) in their face would help in the vast majority of cases.  I guess the cop eventually got bored and decided he probably wasn't a threat here, but I seriously doubt that'd be the case most of the time.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

The guy wasn't being a raging douchbag. The cop detained him illegally and seized his property illegally, the guy cited the law that makes that illegal and refused to identify himself under another legal precedent, and the cop rightfully gave him his gun and allowed him to go on his way.

Don't you keep telling us not to talk to cops or try to act as your own attorney in these situations?  I don't see how shouting rulings (which as far as the cop is concerned could have just been made up by you) in their face would help in the vast majority of cases.  I guess the cop eventually got bored and decided he probably wasn't a threat here, but I seriously doubt that'd be the case most of the time.

I've told you not to talk to cops if you've been arrested or say anything that could be used against you. Furthermore, this guy was a law student. He stood his ground and used case law to back himself up. If you do have clear knowledge of case law then I wouldn't advise against using it to make it clear that you know the law and your rights. There is an implication there. The police don't like dealing with people who know what they're doing, legally, and will more likely than not leave alone someone they believe could end up not being stupid and winning in court if arrested on a bullshit charge, and then file suit against them for malicious prosecution.

[kaijyuu]

this should ensure that the ultimate goal (or at least part of it) of the breaking of the law is to be a signal to those that make the law or are responsible for it (the majority) that something is amiss and should be changed

Alright, makes sense.

Personally I think there's more ways out of moral responsibility than martyrdom. I'm more sympathetic to the "just following orders" excuse than many. A hypothetical officer than enforces a law they don't agree with can defer responsibility to whoever enacted the law, in my opinion, as they're just a tool in someone else's hands. That excuse doesn't carry weight in the cases of them being overzealous in enforcing the law, nor if they helped it come to pass (voting for it, etc), though.

edit2: also pointing to my signature i kind of feel the need to install a package for english spellchecking. please bear with my english

No worries. I can understand you just fine

[lorb]

this should ensure that the ultimate goal (or at least part of it) of the breaking of the law is to be a signal to those that make the law or are responsible for it (the majority) that something is amiss and should be changed

Alright, makes sense.

Personally I think there's more ways out of moral responsibility than martyrdom. I'm more sympathetic to the "just following orders" excuse than many. A hypothetical officer than enforces a law they don't agree with can defer responsibility to whoever enacted the law, in my opinion, as they're just a tool in someone else's hands. That excuse doesn't carry weight in the cases of them being overzealous in enforcing the law, nor if they helped it come to pass (voting for it, etc), though.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing."
I see potential for great danger in the part i highlighted. I do not think it's ok for our hypothetical officer to do nothing about a law he does not agree with. It need not be martyrdom but he ought to do something. At least in a democracy he has partial responsibility for every law in place and voting is only the very baseline absolute minimum of participation you/he should feel obliged to. But raising his voice in the democratic process ans breaking the law sure are different things and the latter should only be an option after the former failed. But in the case that legal actions are not sufficient to right grave wrongs officer joe has a moral duty to break the law. Obviously it is not clear what "grave wrongs" are and in an attempt to ensure that at least the case of breaking the law without a good cause is ruled out i put up the that list of requirements for civil disobedience in the earlier post.
Besides that it is very very hard to give rational proof or similar for normative statements but i do think at least some basic (natural) rights apply to everyone simply by being human and any violation of those legitimates breaking of law. Those rights are (in my opinion) also absolute, universal and objective moral standards.

edit: wow. spellchecking is great. so many words i can freely use without worrying whether they are spelled wrong or right

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Mandatory sentencing of minors to life imprisonment without parole banned by the United States Supreme Court.

[Heron TSG]

Hurrah!