Skip to main content

The law's opposition entails what, exactly?

Law and morality are separate, though obviously related, concerns. There are books recording stupid and silly laws held by American localities at one time or another. These books suggest that said laws were not something one could take seriously in a moral or intellectual sense. There are also many administrative laws without apparent moral intent or character. And then there are the laws most people have no problem ignoring when convenient.

There is arguably nothing wrong with me taping a Mariners' game for personal use (or even for showing at large parties at my house) without checking with anybody if I can. There are variously more controversial issues when it comes to 'intellectual property', but it is obvious that many don't feel that a law proscribing something is enough to make it morally wrong or otherwise distasteful.

People jay walk all the time. This is against the law. Does anybody really think this is something one shouldn't do when there are no cars or cops around to complicate things?

I find it silly that people talk about illegal immigrants as criminals, as though people who got here without INS permission were likely to go rob banks or rape our daughters at a moment's notice. Sure, they didn't follow a law. A federal law. But so what? This does not make them bad or dangerous people, especially if the law is poorly thought out or executed.

Why do some folks assume that law legislates morality? So many who do seem like the sort to tell you morals are objective, too. I just don't get it. I mean, my natural response is to say the people are obviously idiots, and to leave it at that. But I'd like to hope that not all of them are morons, and that some of them just haven't thought this through, or might even have some cogent defense of their position.

Comments

  1. Morals are things that I apply to myself, but not to other people, even though I judge them in light of my morals sometimes.

    Laws are things that are applied to me by authorities. For that reason they are less binding because they aren't necessarily in my best interests, whereas all of my morals are in my best interests in so far as I know what my best interests are. I don't feel bad about breaking the law, or any rule, when it doesn't apply to me. I only may feel afraid of punishment. I feel bad when I break my own moral code though.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An introduction to a book that doesn't exist:

Prose and verse are generally accepted as distinct writing formats with their own rules, styles, and grammars.  Though their borders are somewhat vague, they have come to be seen as something of a dichotomy in the eyes of the general public.  There are, however, at least 3 other popular approaches to writing as exhibited in picture-books, comicbooks, and plays.  Though sometimes given short shrift, these styles are accepted as literature.  They are included in libraries, book stores, and academic study.  Most importantly, they are read. In the general case, there is clearly writing being done in the creation of any one of these.  But what of the wordless comic or silent play?  Should we consider scripts written, but fully realized plays, comics, and picture-books, to be performance, art, or some other kind of non-literature?  These worries of theory are kinks to be worked out, surely, but they are not of immediate practical concern to the writer...

Every thief must go.

Robin , chapter 5  Previous Chapter Robin kept herself busy through her unemployment doing chores and practising martial arts, but mostly she spent time playing in the woods.  The bears avoided her, and she kept out of the thieves' way, as much as she could.  This was no easy task, for Sherman's Forest had its share of scoundrels. Chief of these was Lance Bucskin, infamous for scamming old ladies and still more renowned for his hatred of puppies, which he would kick whenever the chance arose.  Even his own men found his proclivities distasteful, but he had a way with weapons and highway robbery which held his fellows in awe. LANCE-- [clad in all green with a pointed cap; has a devil may care attitude; close cropped blond hair with a well waxed van dyke beard; 28 and in peak condition, he loves exhibiting his physical prowess as much as he enjoys booting little dogs; he is holding up a family as his rapt minions stand by] They're really not all that hard to im...

Reading requires effort, but so does lying about it.

It's in the very first sentence. Right wingers, Republicans, and libertarians who flog the Constitution of the United Sates of America to push their ideology of 'limited government' (except in matters of defence) have forgotten their sacred document's preamble.  "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."  According to the Constitution, a founding purpose of the government it forms (and continues to inform) was to "promote the general Welfare".  Now, one may argue as to what policies do just that, but one cannot claim the Constitution makes no provision for it without either lying or being grossly ignorant of the writings in question.  Though it is against my...