A premise is a fact about the state of affairs that exists which you hope is agreed upon by your interlocutor. If its not agreed on, there's no point in presenting your reasoning, because it reasons from a state of affairs your opponent does not agree exists. — Isaac

Because he doesn't agree? Is that what you're about? How about the right or the correct? That four is the sum of two twos, is that just a matter of agreement? True when folks agree and not when they don't? We're starting out here with nonsense, and no foundation whatsoever for a reasoned argument. But you must have misspoke.

Law is an expression of a social contract.
— tim wood
I do not agree with this premise. — Isaac

You appear to object on the basis of how they're made. I have said nothing about the how, but instead about the what. And you appear to have some specific notion of "social contract"; I do not. A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason. That is what I mean by social contract, that the law(s) are an expression of. Further, that social contract is implied in the the being of a law, in that opposing the law can upset the order of the community, and breaking it, attack.

Morality is the community's view of what should/ should not be done.
— tim wood
As discussed at great length, I do not agree with this premise either. — Isaac

Yes, you self-legislate on this. To be sure there are areas of personal morality - or I think there are - where self-legislation is the right way. But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on. As evidence we need merely consider what the community reserves for itself as the right to do to you if you break the law. And further, mere disagreement should be a signal for approaching argument. On this I've missed your argument. At the moment it seems to me a claim or position without support.

Law is about the benefit and protection of the community.
— tim wood
As with your first assertion about law, you have not provided the mechanism by which this is ensured, and there are countless examples to the contrary. Tell me, in what way do you see the various laws of Apartheid in South Africa to have been about the "benefit and protection of the community"? — Isaac

Clearly the community thought it was for the benefit and protection of the community, or they would not have enacted and enforced those laws. Recent history is that S. Africa saw that the laws were in effect a shooting of their own foot, so they changed their laws.
Similarly in the US with respect to slavery. The community endured the institution for about seventy years, and then eliminated it out of a greater understanding of what was good or beneficial.
But again we - I mean you - confuse the particular with the general. It's easy to say that both slavery and apartheid are horrors, but that judgment is external to our argument.

Harming the community must be seen in and by the community as immoral - must be immoral.
— tim wood
Again we disagree for the reasons given to your assertion that morality is "the community's view of what should/ should not be done". It is possible for the community to hold immoral behaviour to be accepted practice and it may, in theory, be necessary to harm that community for a greater good. — Isaac

We must take care, here. Who makes the judgment that the community accepts immoral behaviour? And that notwithstanding, the immorality of attacking the community remains. It does not evaporate or disappear. And not addressed is the general form of the question that can be asked in particular: who and by what right does such a person judge and act?

Logical consequence: what Nelson Mandela did, for example, was immoral.

Your conclusion: breaking the law is immoral.
Fact: Nelson Mandela broke the law.
Conclusion: Therefore, Nelson Mandela's breaking of the law was immoral.

You do not seem to accept this logical consequence, given your earlier outburst. If so, you are inconsistent, which means that your stance is self-refuting.

You can't have your cake and eat it.

And calling someone disgusting for bringing up counterexamples to your bad logic, as you did earlier, is not a valid or reputable response. — S

I never said it wasn't immoral. With respect to the law as law, he was and it was, And I am sure he would agree. And further I imagine he would have argued that his right overcame the immorality of breaking the law. Wherein, by the actions of the De klerk government, we may assume he was correct.

But your notion of a counterexample is not applicable. The question of the immorality of breaking the law is not determined by the content of the law, which is a separate matter.

But what Schindler did wasn't immoral. — S

And from that you want to be able to self-legislate in opposition to your community's laws that you can and presumably will take illegal drugs and there is nothing immoral about that. Yes?

I never said it wasn't immoral. With respect to the law as law, he was and it was. — tim wood

So then you think that the laws he broke were justified, and his actions were condemnable. Because that's what it means to say that his breaking of the law was immoral, and your own silly semantics has no bearing on this. It only has bearing inside your own little semantic world which you've constructed around yourself. Notice that no one else is using phrases like "law as law" because they reject your semantics, and the oddball reasoning behind it. You mistakenly think that we do not understand what you're saying, but in fact we just reject it, and with good reason.

And I am sure he would agree. And further I imagine he... — tim wood

This means absolutely nothing.

But what Schindler did wasn't immoral.
— S

And from that you want to be able to self-legislate in opposition to your community's laws that you can and presumably will take illegal drugs and there is nothing immoral about that. Yes? — tim wood

Don't be daft and try to stay on point. But yes, the one thing you almost got right in the above quoted response is that there's nothing immoral, in itself, about taking illegal drugs. That's something which would require further examination on a case by case basis, and the outcome could go either way. No one agrees with your dogma that breaking the law is necessarily immoral.

What you were responding to was a counterexample against your failed attempt to justify your unpopular black-and-white approach to the morality of breaking the law. You're the one who made it about that, so don't think that you can just suddenly swing back to the more specific topic of the morality of taking illegal drugs at the drop of a hat, whilst taking my criticism out of context and twisting my words.

How about the right or the correct? That four is the sum of two twos, is that just a matter of agreement? True when folks agree and not when they don't? We're starting out here with nonsense, and no foundation whatsoever for a reasoned argument. — tim wood

So explain to me how 2+2=4 without invoking Peano's axioms. How 2+2 just is 4 without any premises at all that we must first agree on. I'm beginning to see how you consistently seem to arrive at the idea that you're just right, without having to actually support your assertions. You don't seem to understand epistemology at all.

You appear to object on the basis of how they're made. I have said nothing about the how, but instead about the what. — tim wood

Yes. That's the point. There's no 'what' the law is. You can't just say it is something and expect everyone else to agree. It's maddening, this attitude of yours that you just have to say what you think a thing is, and it's just to be taken for granted that you're right. If you want to establish what the law is, you have to explain how it is. That's what is missing. The mechanism by which the law is what you claim it is.

A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason. — tim wood

On the basis of what historical evidence are you basing this theory. You seem to frequently repeat this notion that laws are created by the community for their own good. You have not provided any evidence, nor any mechanism by which this happens.

But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on. — tim wood

So what? If the community are not behaving morally, why should I give a toss what they intended their laws to cover?

mere disagreement should be a signal for approaching argument. On this I've missed your argument. At the moment it seems to me a claim or position without support. — tim wood

I agree. At the moment it is a claim without support. It's purpose here is not to convince you of it, it is to explain the difference between premises and rational argument. What you've expressed is a premise with which others do not agree.

Clearly the community thought it was for the benefit and protection of the community, or they would not have enacted and enforced those laws. — tim wood

The community did not enact and enforce those laws. Nor did they do so in America during the era of slavery. Your willingness to let your right-wing drum-beating, write whole sectors of the community out of history is borderline racist. A minority of white landowners enacted and enforced those laws. They are not, nor ever were the community. The community included blacks, women, children and other immigrants all of whom have been denied any say whatsoever in the laws governing them at various points in history.

Who makes the judgment that the community accepts immoral behaviour? — tim wood

I do. Are you suggesting I absolve my duty to someone else? How would I decide to whom to absolve it?

A community comes into being and in course of time imposes rules on itself for what it supposes to be good and sufficient reason.
— tim wood

On the basis of what historical evidence are you basing this theory. You seem to frequently repeat this notion that laws are created by the community for their own good. You have not provided any evidence, nor any mechanism by which this happens. — Isaac

I think that he is either incapable of conceiving, or, what I find more plausible, maintaining a wilful ignorance, with regard to potential counterexamples to this kind of simplistic thinking that he comes out with, as though it is set in stone. If one does not have the required critical thinking skills or the right attitude for philosophy, then perhaps one should find another hobby.

But surely the concerns of the community expressed by law are not intended by the community for you to self-legislate on.
— tim wood

So what? If the community are not behaving morally, why should I give a toss what they intended their laws to cover? — Isaac

He either doesn't understand why you'd object in this manner, or he simply doesn't care to understand. (I think that it's the latter). He only cares about his dogma, and 'community!' is clearly a big part of that.

Clearly the community thought it was for the benefit and protection of the community, or they would not have enacted and enforced those laws.
— tim wood

The community did not enact and enforce those laws. Nor did they do so in America during the era of slavery. Your willingness to let your right-wing drum-beating, write whole sectors of the community out of history is borderline racist. A minority of white landowners enacted and enforced those laws. They are not, nor ever were the community. The community included blacks, women, children and other immigrants all of whom have been denied any say whatsoever in the laws governing them at various points in history. — Isaac

Very good point. Well said.

So then you think that the laws he broke were justified, and his actions were condemnable. — S

No. Do you not understand English? Go back and review, You are misrepresenting my view, why?

The community did not enact and enforce those laws. Nor did they do so in America during the era of slavery. — Isaac

No? Then who did? Or, what did? You are presupposing a definition of "community" at odds with our agreed definition above. I never said the communities were nice communities or inclusive communities or that the laws were nice laws. I've said nothing about virtue. Maybe go back and read?

And for all this, you're equating the morality of breaking the law by taking illegal drugs with the morality of breaking slave laws and challenging apartheid?

"Well, Nelson Mandela broke the law and it was moral for him to do so, and certain Americans broke slave laws and it was moral for them to do so; so, therefore, it is not immoral for me to break the law by taking illegal drugs." Is that yours in a nutshell? That your morality is on a plane with a Mandela, for example?

"Well, Nelson Mandela broke the law and it was moral for him to do so, and certain Americans broke slave laws and it was moral for them to do so; so, therefore, it is not immoral for me to break the law by taking illegal drugs." Is that yours in a nutshell? — tim wood

Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. It is no more ALWAYS MORAL than it is ALWAYS IMMORAL - this isn't that weird of an idea is it?

Each instance of drug use needs to be judged based on the consequences of said drug use (this is the one bit where I may have slightly different view from S, I think we are still wholly responsible for our actions since we chose to alter our mental state).

I am not trying to argue Consequentialism over Virtue ethics (well maybe a little), just that blanket moral statements like "it is always immoral to do 'X'" are just emotional sentiments that don't consider the actual meaning of words.

As Tim considers it beneath him, and you seem to understand his point... — ZhouBoTong

I don't understand what he's saying about immorality and law, but I somwhat understand what his point is from a philosophical perspective.

Can you explain to me why Schindler breaking the law to help people is immoral? — ZhouBoTong

Because whenever ethical divergence occurs between two or more people, the ethical becomes relativistic.

So you agree there can be situations where EVERY option open to the individual is immoral? What is the point of morals if they do not inform us as to how we should act? — ZhouBoTong

Yes, any situation where the ethical becomes relativistic, we can find that every option open to the individual becomes immoral (especially when an ethical perspective is considered from its necessary antithesis). Schindler was absolutely immoral in relation to the Nazi ethic.

So be it. . .then the point of morals is simply to instill the individual with a personal conviction over his personal responsibility for himself as the decisive moral agent. Furthermore, even if the moral agent is capable of perfectly fulfilling his moral obligations, he can never determine whether or not his morality stands on absolute ground.

So then you think that the laws he broke were justified, and his actions were condemnable.
— S

No. Do you not understand English? Go back and review, You are misrepresenting my view, why? — tim wood

Read the next sentence, genius.

Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. It is no more ALWAYS MORAL than it is ALWAYS IMMORAL - this isn't that weird of an idea is it? — ZhouBoTong

It is for someone who thinks like a child.

Nope, just that it is not AUTOMATICALLY (inherently, definitionally, absolutely) immoral to break a law. — ZhouBoTong

So how do you think it works? If it's not immoral to break the law, Is it immoral to enforce it? Do you explain to the policeman or the judge that you're sorry, but "their" law is simply too immoral not to break it, or, lacking that, you do no wrong by breaking it? How does that play out?

As discussed at great length, I do not agree with this premise either. The arguments around this are long, but to simplify, communities could (and do) exist whose view of what should/should not be done can include things like murder of witches, owning of slaves, raping of war widows... All of which are clearly immoral. — Isaac

Yes, but as I said in a previous conversation with you; there is no evidence that the whole, or even most of, the community approved of those things. Certainly the witches, slaves and war widows and those who might have cared about them, would not have approved, to say the very least.

It is never that murder, slavery and rape and other serious acts are generally morally approved of as such, but when they are approved it is only when done to the "other", and it is by casting some group asother that power elites gain the moral approbation of at least some of the (mostly likely more unthinking) community.

No community would ever approve of murder, slavery or rape being done to any member of what they considered to be "their community". And that was the point about the universality of agreement about "life and death" moral acts that I was making in the earlier discussion.

I had to look at this. Our problem here, that I'll own, is a lack of clarity and accuracy in my expression in keeping separate the separate ideas of law-in-principle and law. Offhand I do not think there is any such thing as a law-in-principle - I cannot think of any example. What I do affirm is that a law, to be a law, has to be a law, meaning it has to be enacted as a law and enforceable as such. That is, it's either a law or it is not a law, no middle. None of this to be confused with the Law, capital L. — tim wood

The underlying/underpinning understanding is that breaking any law is an attack on the community. — tim wood

If laws are only in principle reflective of the will of the community then breaking them is only in principle immoral. But actual laws may not reflect the will of the community; which would mean that breaking them would not be immoral on that account at least. So, as to "doing" illegal drugs, that would only be immoral if the law against the drug reflected the general will of the community. That may be the case with some drugs, but certainly not with drugs such as Cannabis and Psilocybin.

Then there is the further question of whether the will of the community is always and everywhere an educated will, or whether it is a will that is the result of brainwashing of the mob by some power elite. Or again, is the will of the community, even if it is an educated will, an uncoerced will? I don't agree that breaking the law necessarily harms the community; what does or does not harm the community may or may not be sanctioned by law.

I do agree in that in principle acts which intentionally or negligently harm individuals, and hence the community, are, by definition, immoral. The question is; how far does your conception of and feeling for, community extend? I say there are no definite answers in moral philosophy, except for the most serious "life and death" acts such as murder, rape, torture and so on, which are always and everywhere morally wrong..

You are presupposing a definition of "community" at odds with our agreed definition above. I never said the communities were nice communities or inclusive communities or that the laws were nice laws. I've said nothing about virtue. — tim wood

One key component of your argument is that one "benefits" from being in a community.

In the community, one is either a member of the community or at least subject to it. In any case, as present in it, one benefits from it. In a simple sense, then, though not a legal sense, to be in is to be a member. — tim wood

If the black population of South Africa at the time of Apartheid were part of "the community" then perhaps you could explain how they benefitted from that membership (as opposed to forming their own community).

If they were not part of "the community" then why were they morally obliged to accept the laws of some other community, by your argument?

Law is about the benefit and protection of the community. — tim wood

Again, you categorically cannot have this apply both ways to Apartheid. Either...

1. Blacks were a part of "the community", in which case your statement above is contradicted because the laws of apartheid were not about their benefit and protection. Or...

2. Blacks were not part of "the community", in which case your arguments do not apply to them. But this would mean that the moral obligation is to the laws you feel represent you, not the ones of the country you happen to live in.

The argument you most recently presented to me linked "the community's" ideas of what should/should not be done, to the making of laws by that "community", for the benefit and protection of that "community" and concluded that because of this link, breaking them must necessarily constitute a harm to "the community". This argument requires that the law-breaker is a part of (benefitting from) the community which made the law. Otherwise you're claiming that it is intrinsically a moral wrong for one independent party to infringe on the wishes of another without any regard for what those wishes are. It would be immoral of me to prevent a murder because I have gone against the wishes of the murderer.

And for all this, you're equating the morality of breaking the law by taking illegal drugs with the morality of breaking slave laws and challenging apartheid? — tim wood

As @S has already pointed out to earlier. You made the issue one of the absolute immorality of breaking the law. You can't no swing it back to the specifics because the argument isn't going your way.

No community would ever approve of murder, slavery or rape being done to any member of what they considered to be "their community". And that was the point about the universality of agreement about "life and death" moral acts that I was making in the earlier discussion. — Janus

I'm happy to go along with this definition but I'm not sure what it gains in terms universality. The imperative "do not murder a member of your community" might well be universal, but it is circular if you define "your community" only as {those you would not murder}. The imperative becomes "do not murder those you would not murder", which is exactly moral relativism.

In order for the imperative "do not murder a member of your own community" to mean anything non-relativistic, the variable {member of your own community} needs to be defined non-relativistically, otherwise the imperative becomes "murder whomever you like"

So how - given our history, do you go about defining {member of your community} in a non-relativistic way?

So how - given our history, do you go about defining {member of your community} in a non-relativistic way? — Isaac

I don't deny that there is no hard and fast definition of community (or anything else!). But I would suggest that most people know just who would count as a member of their community, and that for many if not most within a given community there would be agreement. I'd say the ideal is to consider all humans and animals as members of your community, and abjure from murdering (wantonly killing) altogether.

The interesting thing about killing (as distinct from murder) is that it must be justifiable in some instances (i.e. killing for food or self-preservation) whereas torture or rape could never be justified in any instance.

I don't deny that there is no hard and fast definition of community (or anything else!). But I would suggest that most people know just who would count as a member of their community, and that for many if not most within a given community there would be agreement — Janus

But this doesn't cover places like Nazi Germany. Here, "the Jews" were turned into "the other" and thus it was considered morally OK to murder them (or hand them in to be murdered). You can see "Hitler's Willing Executioners" for evidence of this.

I don't see how you could describe the events of 1930s/40s Germany as the community just 'knowing' that Jews were no longer members. It seems quite clear from the history that people wanted to kill (or at least steal from and expel) Jews first, and second they went about "othering" them to justify their actions. All of which would indicate a relativist approach to who is and isn't a member of one's community.

In order for the imperative "do not murder/torture/rape a member of your community" to be universal, the rules for {member of your community} must also be universal, otherwise the imperitive becomes " do not murder whomever you subjectively feel it is not OK to murder", which is relativist, not universal.

So, what I'm struggling to see in your argument is a universally applied rule for who constitutes a member of one's community which is not itself relativist. Some rule which derives from universal facts about the world, not relative feeling.

I would suggest that most people know just who would count as a member of their community, and that for many if not most within a given community there would be agreement. — Janus

... Or... Are you saying that people know instinctively who is a member of their community, such that this category is (near)-universalised by biology, and people like those who would hand over Jews to be killed were acting immorally and knew perfectly well they were. Afterall, people do do immoral things so we can't exclusively use behaviour to judge what people consider moral. And people lie about their feelings, so we can't use their reports of what they consider moral.

Is that closer to what you mean?

One key component of your argument is that one "benefits" from being in a community. — Isaac

Apartheid, to justify taking illegal drugs? I am not about to argue apartheid, for the best reason that I know little about it. And I suspect you don't either. Can we suppose it bad? We can.

And again. the difference between us is one, really, of existence. You say immorality in breaking the law does not exist, I say it does. Not, can it be immoral to break some laws and moral to break others, but something more fundamental. You decompose the issue to the content of the law, what it's about, and what you think about it. And that's fine. But prior to that is the presupposition of respect for the law as law. Not as law-in-principle or as abstract, but as law.

But to get back to earth: correct me here: the argument that it is not immoral to take illegal drugs is founded on the idea that it is the taker of the drugs who gets to decide for himself personally whether the law in question is one he should obey, and the as well his reasons. That is, the decision is his. and being his, his decision cannot be immoral. Is that about right?

As S has already pointed out to earlier. You made the issue one of the absolute immorality of breaking the law. You can't no swing it back to the specifics because the argument isn't going your way. — Isaac

If you say so. Personally, I would not use S. as an example for how to argue anything.

And yes. I argue for the absolute.

So, what I'm struggling to see in your argument is a universally applied rule for who constitutes a member of one's community which is not itself relativist. Some rule which derives from universal facts about the world, not relative feeling. — Isaac

This we agreed to, copied here:

Community is the coming together of people for mutual benefit and protection. Community understood as a state the better for it than for the lack of it.
— tim wood
Agreed. We can continue to reason from this premise because we both agree with it.
In the community, one is either a member of the community or at least subject to it. In any case, as present in it, one benefits from it. In a simple sense, then, though not a legal sense, to be in is to be a member.
— tim wood
Again, we agree here, so reasoning developed from this premise would be worth pursuing. — Isaac

And counter question: let's suppose you-all are right: that breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law?

And counter question: let's suppose you-all are right: that breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood

Nothing happens to the Law, its integrity is still intact. The person who does something illegal still has to deal with the consequences of breaking the law, a fine, jail, whatever. The morality of the act also maintains its integrity. This is because the two things are separate, they are not the same thing.

If people deem it moral, or at least not immoral,
to break a law, then I’d say that undermines the law. It’s surely possible to morally undermine a law by appealing to a higher set of values, but it doesn’t seem to me you could do that with drugs, given their harms.

The morality of the act also maintains its integrity. This is because the two things are separate, they are not the same thing. — DingoJones

Do you see any obligation to obey the law as law? Not to say that you cannot break a law on moral grounds, but that at the outset the law must be respected as law, before it is broken as immoral law. My view is that law imposes a duty. Whether it's observed is decided after.

What you say here ignores the fact that the Jews had been a more or less tolerated religious subculture in Europe for well over a thousand years.

In order for the imperative "do not murder/torture/rape a member of your community" to be universal, the rules for {member of your community} must also be universal, otherwise the imperitive becomes " do not murder whomever you subjectively feel it is not OK to murder", which is relativist, not universal. — Isaac

The more or less hostile attitude toward the Jews was always a matter of community sentiment, not the arbitrary decision of lone individuals (which would not be tolerated by the community if their attitude was favorable towards Jews) so, no, the moral situation was not subjective in the way that you are trying to depict it.

Having said that I won't deny that community moral sentiment can be manipulated by power elites.

Yes, I would say the situation could also be, to some degree at least, as you paint it here.

breaking the law is not immoral in any way in itself, then what happens to the law? — tim wood

Breaking law is usually related to civil or otherwise administrative conditions, and the law remains unaffected. The consequence of breaking civil law is predicated on the stipulations legislated into it, varies accordingly and is always empirical.

Disrespecting law, on the other hand, is usually related to the deontological moral doctrine, and if such should be the case, the law herein being moral law immediately becomes void. The consequence of disrespecting any moral law whatsoever is being immoral, has no variance and is always a priori.

Law in itself does indeed impose a duty under both moral and civil doctrines.