3. He is objectively neither right, nor wrong, because the question of who is and is not a member of your community is a subjective one.

You've already dismissed 3. If you accept 2 we have to also accept that vast quantities of people both act immoraly, and lie about their moral feelings when asked (which undermines the evidence base for universality). But that leaves us only with 1, which is the racist option.

Do you see the problem? — Isaac

No, I haven't dismissed 3 because all along I have argued that the closest we come to objectivity is inter-subjectivity, and that morality is inter-subjective. So someone or some group will be members of the community to the degree that the community considers them to be.

Of course I am not going to dispute that this ultimately comes down to individual attitudes, but most individual's attitudes are determined by the general feelings and attitudes of whatever communities they identify themselves with or unreflectively belong to.

The more thoughtful an individual is the more they will be able to dissent from the group consensus. Someone like that will most likely expand their sense of community, not shrink it. Sociopathic individuals, those who lack empathy, will most likely go the other way and shrink their sense of community, perhaps right down to just themselves. So, their moral dissent will be in the negative direction; they will become less moral, rather than becoming, as the more thoughtful do, more moral (in the sense of expanding their sense of community).

Unfortunately I can't agree or disagree with what you have said here Mww, because what it is is not clear to me.

To my way of thinking the entire civil rights movement is an exercise in higher morality. As such it - the exercise - comes at a cost. In a business/accounting metaphor, the reward, the revenue, is greater than the expense - it had better be! - and adjudged worth it; but the simple plain facts of the matter do not make the expense disappear - and they had better not! Among those are the moral and other expenses - costs - of breaking the law. — tim wood

So its (civil rights movement) morality outweighs its immorality? That is how I make every moral decision. I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed.

So its (civil rights movement) morality outweighs its immorality? That is how I make every moral decision. I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed. — ZhouBoTong

Probably not. But some folks here argue that in terms of the morality/immorality of breaking the law, that there is no - zero - expense, that no immorality attaches to the breaking, because they have decided so. And expand this to the "doing of illegal drugs," of the title of this thread. I hold the first a fairly serious error/deficiency in understanding, the second an absurdity.

662
prior to that is the presupposition of respect for the law as law. Not as law-in-principle or as abstract, but as law. — Isaac

It seems to me that "law as law" is law in general or law in principle, as opposed to 'law as a law' which is law in particular.

We should respect law as law, but it doesn't follow that we must respect any particular law.

Your position on this just seems confused to me.

Again, you're not making the distinction that I am making. As such, every argument that you make misses the mark. — tim wood

What distinction is that?

As a member of a community, you are always under law, even while sleeping. As such, I hold, you are under a moral obligation with respect to the law - which is to say that you acknowledge the other in the law and his or her right to your compliance as supporting and maintaining your community. — tim wood

Still not seeing the link you're making. I am always subject to the law of my country. OK. Then you leap to me being under a moral obligation to it without demonstrating that link. What is it about 'the law' which is moral? By which I'm expecting an answer which appeals to some common moral objective, such as harm reduction or the persuit of some agreed virtue. What of these does 'the law' necessarily pursue, simply by being 'the law'?

Disobedience (as observed before) is revolution writ small - or large! — tim wood

Yes, and why is revolution immoral?

does your moral obligation to obey the law absolutely stop you from breaking the law? It does not. Clearly it does not. What follows then if you break it? A likely-hood of real harm to you and real harm to your community. And who authorized that other than you? — tim wood

If we're just going to go back to these stupid assertions without argument then there's no point in continuing. I thought you might have adapted your discursive style, but as soon as we get close to the heart of the matter you just revert to the same old hysterical bullshit.

Tell me again then, exactly how breaking the law leads to a "likelihood of real harm to you and real harm to your community" when we've just spent pages demonstrating how this is not necessarily the case.

You didn't only claim that morality was inter-subjective. You additionally claimed that some morals were "near universal", and it is that issue that I disputed. Your moral "do not murder/torture/rape a member of your community" in order to be near universal needs to have the variable {member of your community} defined near-universally, otherwise the entire instruction is meaningless universally.

If {member of your community} becomes, whomever you think is a member, then the instruction contains the variable 'whomever you think', which is subjective.

In order for this to be "near universal", there would have to be near universal agreement on who constituted a {member of your community}.

If you are claiming that indeed there is near universal agreement, and this constitutes a moral, then you are giving moral weight to xenophobia, which is, without doubt, the most prevelent form of community circumscribing, and so the only method which has even a thin claim to be "near universal".

If, on the other hand, you accept the progressive's definition of {member of your community}, then you'd have to admit that this is far from "near universal".

If the variable {member of your community} is not universal, then the entire instruction "do not murder/torture/rape a member of your community" cannot have any universal applicability. It could apply to anything from no-one, to everyone, depending entirely on the person holding it.

"depending entirely on the person holding it" is basically the definition of relativism, which you fervently denied.

It seems to me that "law as law" is law in general or law in principle, as opposed to 'law as a law' which is law in particular. — Janus

Yes, but no one has provided either a definition of what law in general, or law in principle, actually is. Nor, most importantly, how it is more than the sum of its parts.

If a country's laws (individual statutes) consisted of nothing but instructions to oppress some minority group, how, when they are collected together into 'the law' do they become something we must respect? I'm not seeing the moral.

How are you contributing to this discussion? — tim wood

By pointing out your failings. Clearly that angers you.

I call the side that outweighs as the correct moral choice. Despite our MASSIVE disagreement on semantics, I am not sure our views on morality are that opposed. — ZhouBoTong

Everyone calls it that, and no one agrees with Tim's semantics. What's the point of a semantics of one?

"Is it immoral to do illegal drugs?", the OP asks. But it doesn't consider alcohol, the drug that causes the greatest damage to the greatest number of humans. It's difficult to consider the moral aspects of doing illegal drugs when the most significant drug is not considered because it isn't illegal. Doesn't this inevitably skew our discussions here? :chin:

By pointing out your failings. Clearly that angers you. — S

Fuck off, mere-S. This adds nothing to the discussion. You're wasting my time and everyone else's time.

Fuck off, mere-S. This adds nothing to the discussion. You're wasting my time and everyone else's time. — tim wood

I've considered your thoughtful objection, but unfortunately for you, I've decided to continue to point out your failings, regardless of how many times you tell me to "fuck off" or call me "mere-S". :grin:

Sure, mere-S. But don't you suppose that topic, having nothing to do with this topic, deserves its own thread? Or at least, in the spirit of inquiry, not just call out my faults, but indicate what they are in such terms that others will neither stray as I have strayed, nor be mislead by me?

That would be the right way, but any of that is not your way. So fuck off; your posts are useless and a waste of time.

But don't you suppose that topic, having nothing to do with this topic, deserves its own thread? — tim wood

Your failings span multiple topics. In this discussion, your failings relate to the ethics of taking illegal drugs. And the specific failing I pointed out was your failure to ask a sensible question. That failure is a reoccurring failure, in spite of my pointing it out earlier. The solution would be to put more thought into a question before asking it.

Hope that helps! :grin: :up:

More chimp-pig content, please.

I mean, when you asked:

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

Was there not even a hint in your mind that you were asking a stupid question, given its vague and loaded nature?

Was there not even a hint in your mind that you were asking a stupid question, given its vague and loaded nature? — S

So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin:

So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin: — Shamshir

How ironic. That is itself a loaded question. You realise that, right? Can you not see what's vague or loaded about the question he asked? It's the "what happens to the law" part. That's stupidly broad, and there's an implicit assumption that "something" happens, though he doesn't bother to say what. Whatever he was trying to ask, he could have put more thought into how he went about asking it.

Perhaps it’s enough to say, if it had been clear, we’d have agreed on some of it, disagreed on some of it.

Yeah, it is ironic that you confirmed my claim, rather than answering straightforward, even if the answer is 'I don't know', for which no one would criticise you, boy who cried loaded question.

I don't answer loaded questions, I identify them as loaded. The irony was that it was a loaded question where the loaded assumption is that I use "loaded question" as an excuse. Obviously I reject that loaded assumption present within your question.

It's ironic in the same way that it would be ironic if I argued that circular reasoning is great because great reasoning is circular.

You're committing the very fallacy you mention, which is kind of amusing. Thanks for amusing me.

So every question you can't or don't want to answer is stupid, vague and loaded, huh? :chin: — Shamshir

I don't answer loaded questions — S

There we go. :clap:

Yes, but no one has provided either a definition of what law in general, or law in principle, actually is. Nor, most importantly, how it is more than the sum of its parts. — Isaac

I'm guessing you're a person who obeys the law, or nearly all of them. The question is why? Because you have educated yourself on all of them and have got detailed knowledge of each, and from that knowledge base make a personal decision for yourself in every applicable situation and on every occasion whether to obey or break that law? Is that you? Or do you just comply, no-brainer, to most of it, and that for the precise and simple reason that it's the law. At every stop sign before you stop, in order to inform your decision as to whether to stop, do you consult road and traffic conditions, the weather, take into account the condition of your tires and the tire pressures, your brakes, the presence of other cars, pedestrians, or the possibility of a lurking police car, all in order to make the best decision about stopping? Or do you just see the sign, and stop? If you just obey the law because it's the law, that's towards what I mean by law-as-law.

If you don't just obey the law - and how can you because you deny there is any such thing as the law-as-law -

I'm claiming that things like 'law' as law do not exist. Law, as a concept is not coherent. — Isaac

then how do you avoid the exhausting and constant consideration of your circumstances you need to be in compliance? Or do you just blow through stop signs?

My point is that nearly everyone - possibly every person on the planet except for you - has and understands a concept of law-as-law. They do not need to spend hours every day rehearsing legislative history and intent and current conditions in order to comply. And in any case that's not their immediate duty; their immediate duty is to comply, to obey, to stop at the stop sign.

Tell me if any of this is mysterious to you: it's meant to be a statement of the obvious.

Your failings span multiple topics. In this discussion, your failings relate to the ethics of taking illegal drugs. And the specific failing I pointed out was your failure to ask a sensible question. That failure is a reoccurring failure, in spite of my pointing it out earlier. The solution would be to put more thought into a question before asking it.

Hope that helps! :grin: :up: — S

Earns you another fuck off. You, yourself, could not even begin to appreciate the breadth and depth of my many and manifold failings. Even to encounter a fraction of them would leave you vertiginous and gasping for breath. That's why, in orderly discussion, it's wise and discreet to the point of self-preservation to stay on topic and not wander off the path where alligators or worse may await. I charge you to restrict your comments to those that make a positive contribution to the topic under discussion, and to leave your sickness aside, to "check it at the door" so to speak - or to not post. Can you do it?

Tim, you do realize that his behavior is no different than that of a troll at this point?

I've lost count, but I think S., above, has earned himself an additional three fuck offs. I apologize to everyone else for this detour into invective - and no, I'm not inviting a separate discussion of it: this is only an apology. As to my reasons, anyone can review at length S.'s comments in this and other threads. They follow a consistent pattern of destructive, inappropriate, content that does nothing to further the discussions they're in. For the time being I intend to call out S. whenever he posts non-sense - but unfortunately there's a good chance he'll outlast me.

that's towards what I mean by law-as-law. — tim wood

Perfect. Or at least close enough.

Now all that’s needed is.......why should it be accepted that

their immediate duty is to comply — tim wood

There we go. :clap: — Shamshir

So you're foolish enough to answer loaded questions? Why is that?

Fuck off. :lol: