It seems to me a reasonable supposition that law comes out of morality. The question then is not whether law is immoral but whether obedience to law itself is a matter of morality. Or a clearer form of the question: is there a presumption about law or any law that it should be obeyed? To ask if an x is a y presupposes either that is or could be a y. To ask if a law is moral or can be disregarded is to presuppose that it is moral and should be complied with. That's the starting point for any member of a community. And there apparently are a lot of people who feel they're entitled (presumably as members of the community) to legislate their own laws and their own compliance with laws. I claim and argue that this is immoral.

The argument is that it is ok to break the law under "certain circumstances". Questions: what circumstance and by what or whose standard? And with what consequence?

If you have an argument, here, thought through, I'll be glad to read it and reply. But if you look back through this thread, you will see that much of it is a waste of time. if we're to do more here, then let's do better! But take care to observe what I have not argued.

It seems to me a reasonable supposition that law comes out of morality. — tim wood

Much of it certainly does. It tends not to cover a great deal of things that may be considered immoral - making fun of someone in most instances - but what is in the law has perhaps for the most part to do with morality. Exceptions might be things that are just practices we need to agree on, like perhaps around contracts, where different models might be equally moral, but we need to have one so we are all on the same page.

The question then is not whether law is immoral but whether obedience to law itself is a matter of morality. Or a clearer form of the question: is there a presumption about law or any law that it should be obeyed? — tim wood

Right, and it's good you bring this up. I think that is an underlying issue here, so it's good to have on the table.

To ask if a law is moral or can be disregarded is to presuppose that it is moral and should be complied with. — tim wood

I don't think this makes sense. Unless you mean we are presupposing that the law deals with behavior and was constructed to encourage moral behavior. But just because it is a law and intended to deal with a moral issue does not for me lead to the conclusion that it is moral.

That's the starting point for any member of a community. — tim wood

I get that from your perspective that should be the starting point. But the people in question may, for example, identify as Christian and where the law goes against that sub-community, they will feel obliged to break the law if it means they must sin.

It would be one thing if there was a like a big caucus and we decided which group we wanted to have a society with and then made up laws we considered moral. But we find ourselves in societies, and then also in subcultures and our sense of morality may go against the morality in the law. US law, ironically enough, even allows for one to break the law on moral grounds - necessity defense - if one can show that it was so important - in ways that the wider societies values - to break that law. It is a rare defense as far as working, but there it is, in the law itself, the idea. That opens the door - though I think it is already open - to the idea that breaking the law can be moral.

And there apparently are a lot of people who feel they're entitled (presumably as members of the community) to legislate their own laws and their own compliance with laws. I claim and argue that this is immoral. — tim wood

I get that, and it's good to have that clearly stated. I don't think I have ever met someone who did not break at least minor laws - jay walking, say - when they felt they could evaluate the potential consquences, etc. But it is possible that some people, you being one, never do this, or consider it per se immoral when you do.

I don't think this is the case. And right now we are working at a very abstract level. Would this be true for women in Iran, abolitionists who broke the law aiding escaping slaves, dissidents in the old USSR, revolutions against royal power, colonies like the US breaking laws to leave the Empire. Once it is is moral in some situations, we now have to decide when. But perhaps even in those societies you would hold the same stance. And I do have sympathy for the idea. One can look at is as a kind of contract with the other members of society. And in many situations I certainly want people to exhaust other means: try to change legislation, protest, whatever - if these things are allowed - before breaking certain laws - in specific societies.

But otherwise no, I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it. There could be instances where I would feel it was immoral not to break a specfic law. Using illegal drugs not being one of those sets of laws.

The argument is that it is ok to break the law under "certain circumstances". Questions: what circumstance and by what or whose standard? And with what consequence? — tim wood

Waht are the consequences of following the law? In some situations this might include reporting people to powers that would commit immoral acts against them.

But even in more mundane situations, tracking consequences is very tricky. Some one can track, some I don't think so.

If you have an argument, here, thought through, I'll be glad to read it and reply. But if you look back through this thread, you will see that much of it is a waste of time. if we're to do more here, then let's do better! But take care to observe what I have not argued. — tim wood

Well, my first argument is that we need to get specific. Does your sense that it is immoral per se to break the law hold regardless of the laws/society involved? If it does we can discuss examples like the ones I mentioned. If it does not hold regardless of the laws and society, then your questions about consequences and grounds and the rest is also one you would need to answer.

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies. — Mtherapist67

Why? In what way? How?

To ask if a law is moral or can be disregarded is to presuppose that it is moral and should be complied with.
— tim wood
I don't think this makes sense. — Coben

Did you ever spend time trying to figure out if a cherry popsicle could win the Indianapolis 739? No, because it's absurd and there is no such race. The point here is merely to suppose that if a question is asked (that is not a nonsense question; i.e., a serious question), it presupposes certain answers to that question - not to be confused with answering it. Without this rule, we are obliged to consider whether our question is about, or also about, or answered by, the number of spots on a leopard or the weight of a hippopotamus.

is there a presumption about law or any law that it should be obeyed?
— tim wood
I think that is an underlying issue here, so it's good to have on the table. — Coben

I have in mind a (the) concept of law in general. I assume most people would agree that at first cut, one should consider that as a law, the particular law in question should be obeyed.

Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. In my view that does not make the lesser morality "evaporate." It's still there, and, as a practical matter and depending on enforcement, can still bite!

Your argument, as I read it, is that there can be reasons for breaking a law superior to those for obeying it. And on the existence past, present, and likely future of laws that are non-controversially abhorrent to right-thinking folks like you and me, I agree as to the existence of those reasons. Even as to an ultimate duty to act in accordance. We perhaps disagree on the both the extent of the justifiable grounds for such an action, and the status of the action itself.

I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it. — Coben

No? What happened to the concept and understanding of law in general? Isn't this expression of the thing too facile? It comes down to what you mean by "think."

And as well that if you consider it moral to break a law, arguably you must think the law itself is immoral. That is, yours is an attack not just on some particular thing at a particular time in a particular way, but on the system as a whole. Way above in this thread I called such an act a mini-revolution. Revolutions by their nature are destructive, thus serious business.

In sum, morality arises out of community, and law out of morality. Off-hand I can think of no law so arbitrary it cannot be traced back to these roots. As such, members of any community start with/under obligation.

There are those who argue that law impairs their "freedom," or "freedom of choice." But it's likely that such arguments are based on flawed understandings - if even there are any understandings - of the terms of their own arguments.

Just above, for example, we have

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies. — Mtherapist67

I consider this an ignorant whine, not even arising to the level of speech, and at the least confusing license with freedom - and likely having no understanding of what freedom is. In practice, I have never met an addict who felt in the least bit free about taking illegal drugs, they always argue need and compulsion!

Did you ever spend time trying to figure out if a cherry popsicle could win the Indianapolis 739? No, because it's absurd and there is no such race. The point here is merely to suppose that if a question is asked (that is not a nonsense question; i.e., a serious question), it presupposes certain answers to that question - not to be confused with answering it. Without this rule, we are obliged to consider whether our question is about, or also about, or answered by, the number of spots on a leopard or the weight of a hippopotamus. — tim wood

I didn't get this.

Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. In my view that does not make the lesser morality "evaporate." It's still there, and, as a practical matter and depending on enforcement, can still bite! — tim wood

Nice, clear. This will help clarify where we agree and disagree.

Your argument, as I read it, is that there can be reasons for breaking a law superior to those for obeying it. — tim wood

This is certainly one of the arguments.

We perhaps disagree on the both the extent of the justifiable grounds for such an action, and the status of the action itself. — tim wood

re: breaking the law on moral grounds. yes, we may disagree. But once we agree, then it opens a door where we must think as individuals. Below you say...

I do not feel obligated if I think the law is immoral to follow it.
— Coben
No? What happened to the concept and understanding of law in general? Isn't this expression of the thing too facile? It comes down to what you mean by "think." — tim wood

I could follow laws and pretend I am not thinking, but I am making a decision to follow them. You are using thinking to judge people for breaking the law. We use thinking to come with laws. It is a huge responsibility we each have, whether we follow or not and when and why and how much we thought and how we decided to trust ourselves to go against what some other thought or to go along with them.

And as well that if you consider it moral to break a law, arguably you must think the law itself is immoral. That is, yours is an attack not just on some particular thing at a particular time in a particular way, but on the system as a whole. — tim wood

I don't think thinking that one law is immoral means you think the whole system is wrong. I don't think an abolitionist need think that laws against rape are wrong or even that a government can make the laws, in general, is wrong.

In sum, morality arises out of community, and law out of morality. Off-hand I can think of no law so arbitrary it cannot be traced back to these roots. As such, members of any community start with/under obligation. — tim wood

That is certainly what the state expects and many of the citizens in it. Though, again, I notice pretty much everyone then breaking at least small laws when they think they have the skills needs or whatever to make the judgement it is OK in this or that instance or in general. They offer wine to their minor kids and give a talk they think makes for a more healthy whole than not doing that. They jaywalk. They double park because it's the only way to get their kid to....And yes, for most they are minor offences, but the door is open and I would guess that most citizens do this. So I have a state expecting me to follow all laws and consider them moral and a sort of base contract. While at the same not legislators, enforcement (police) and my fellow citizens also clearly make at least small exceptions - iow they think they are small, they think they can make the decision. And most of them would agree that they would break laws in other countries if they were born there if following the law was immoral. And in past times they would break laws they considered immoral.

I see no communal consensus on this. I also see a contract as having arisen around me. Yes, I could emigrate and place myself in the confines of another contract, in another society. But I cannot head out to the frontier and live in the Rockies in my shack and avoid the contract. I don't know how to view that contract. I made no promise. I had no real choice. I did not make the contract.

Now I do things like jaywalk but I have not committed crimes against persons or property. I do follow the laws in the vast majority of instances. And I understand the need for laws the commonly shared practices and morals they become. I get that. But I am not sure why I need to see the laws I dislike as anything other than customs, which have punishments if broken. I don't see why I need to see them as moral.

There are those who argue that law impairs their "freedom," or "freedom of choice." But it's likely that such arguments are based on flawed understandings - if even there are any understandings - of the terms of their own arguments. — tim wood

Could you expand on that?
States are based on values also, say those in the Declaration of Independence - and if you are not from the US, perhaps there are ideals, images, propaganda, values that are touted at official events, in government explanations for their choices, legislative, policy, oversight whatever. In the US these values can be seen, often, to be at odds with particular legislation. Should one listen to the promises and values in the PR or the laws.

One does get punished if one breaks the law and is caught.

Must I for some reason consider my behavior immoral also. Must I agree with the majority, if it even is the majority that thinks it immoral? If I break a law I take a risk. This may or may not lead to anxiety. But here we have the practical measures the state takes for those who break the law. It has decided to approach the issue with prison and fines and probation and so on. Yes, there are also statements by politicians about why the laws are in place, but the primary method is punishment for breaches of those morals the law covers.

I see myself born into a system with flaws and positive traits and a whole lot of messages about how one should and can live. These messages do not always fit with the laws. These laws do not always fit with my morals or my sense of what the state should or even should be able to tell me to do.

yes, my concluding this is reached by my thinking. And people who theoretically do not think may follow laws that are immoral. But the fact is they think. They decide to trust authority, the authority they have been told to trust and to adhere to it. Often they just assume that if it is illegal it must be bad. This is poor thinking from my perspective. And it leads to the conclusion not only that they and others should follow the law, but even how they vote. This is all a form of thinking, one they are responsible for and one that has consequences.

Did they think well?
Could they consider considering these laws a little more carefully?
Do they ever look at history?

This last section is me responding to what seemed like incredulity that what I think might be allowed to lead to my behavior.

I see no way to avoid this.

I can see avoiding thinking for oneself, which might be leaving open the possiblity of believing something more controversial, though perhaps moral.

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
I consider this an ignorant whine, not even arising to the level of speech, and at the least confusing license with freedom - and likely having no understanding of what freedom is. In practice, I have never met an addict who felt in the least bit free about taking illegal drugs, they always argue need and compulsion! — tim wood

Wow. That raised so many issues and implies that use of drugs that are illegal is always by addicts or that everyone who uses illegal drugs is compelled. It just assumes that legal approaches are best for addiction, let alone for people who use who are not addicted. It seems unconcerned that legal drugs are killing people in huge numbers and that the difference is not the level of addiction between legal and illegal, but the kinds of effects on the outlook of users. And as someone who has counseled drug addicts you are incorrect. Often addicts deny they are addicted or under any compulsion. It can take years to get them to see they need help to get off the drugs and that it isnt', for them, a free choice in the sense it might be for a non-addict.

They now know that a very high percentage of addicts were abused as children, severely abused. We treat them as criminals rather than as people who society let down. The criminalization has led to the highest rates of incarceration in the world and the war on drugs was consciously started to attack and control minority communities.

Did you know that in Switzerland where heroin addicts instead of being incarcerated were given medical quality heroin, almost universally survive and after a period of tend years, after reducing as their own choice their doses, stop using. They hold down jobs and do as well as people who drink alcohol. Portrual decrmininalized narcotic use. It is still illegal to sell. but not to use. The number of deaths dropped down to almost no difference from non-users. people were not longer incarcerated. Their is less HIV being contracted and less crime committed by users.

Even the most critical of the new policy, such as members of the narcotics squads in Potrugal now admit that this was the right decision.

The drug war has a racist history, racist enforcement and have created a great deal of the violence around drug distribution.

Anyone who only complains about drug users thinking it is OK to use drugs while not also being critical of the drug war and much of the legislation related to it is being immoral I think.

A nice read about this is.....https://www.amazon.com/Chasing-Scream-Opposite-Addiction-Connection/dp/1620408910

This does not resolve the issue of whether one has an obligation to follow those laws or laws in general, but that passage and your quite insulting reaction to the other poster led me to go into this issue a little. It's just a sketch.

You said what he said barely rose to the level of speech. Your response was extremely poor.

Just here I'll mention that it's been my position that a) it is immoral to break the law, but that it is possible that a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it. I — tim wood

Tim - Apologies if this question was already asked and answered - I read through the discussion but did not see it.

If I'm following you, then there may be reasons for breaking a particular law if a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it, but in this particular case - illegal drugs - there is no such higher or greater morality that requires you to break it (as would be, say, in the situation of not telling the Nazis that you have hidden a Jewish escapee fro a concentration camp.)

Am I representing you correctly - or am I at least close?

I will overlook your ignorant whine comment. I will always argue for individual rights, whether it be the right to private property, the right to put ingest whatever substances we choose, and the right to take our own lives once we no longer have a viable quality of life. Individuals will use their drug of choice no matter if it is licit or illicit. The vast majority of individuals use their drug or choice responsibly whether the drug is legal or illegal. Are you suggesting that drug laws, and periods in the history of this country where bureaucrats have declared a "War on Drugs", has made a vast difference in curbing drug Use? I would argue that the vast majority of drug laws don't target the drugs themselves; it is a war on the people who use them. May I suggest a read entitled "Our Right to Drugs" by Thomas Szasz. He makes a compelling argument as to why we should be wary of a paternalistic government and the motivation behind laws governing individual preferences.

Be careful how you quack, then. Question: assuming that you drive a motor vehicle, do you mostly and mainly observe motor vehicle laws? If you do, why do you? As an exercise of your personal freedom? I accept the argument in favour of individual rights in opposition to oppression. Is the concept of law an oppression? And who pays the bill. the dollars, for your "freedom." It may be that drugs now illegal should be legal, but that argument is beyond me. And illegal drugs 'round the world are in most places illegal. Maybe people know a thing or two?

There are lots of people who think that law is their personal bailiwick, to approve or disapprove, comply with or not, as they see it and as they see fit - and in many cases their sense of entitlement extends beyond issues of law. It is a viewpoint of stunning immaturity.

Now I have a challenge for you: I have read your reply closely and there is in it not one thought or word that is responsive to my claim or argument. Why is that?

Nor did you respond to this:

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
Why? In what way? How? — tim wood

The question of the OP has never gone away. You apparently think taking illegal drugs is not immoral - except I find no evidence of thought in your answer. Try it - thinking, that is. See what you come up with.

Above I wrote these two sentences:

1)

But take care to observe what I have not argued. — tim wood

And: 2)

I have in mind a (the) concept of law in general. I assume most people would agree that at first cut, one should consider that as a law, the particular law in question should be obeyed. — tim wood

You have inferred much about what you think my views are on topics I have not expressed my views on. What is your view on #2?

If I'm following you, then there may be reasons for breaking a particular law if a higher or greater morality or rule attends breaking it, but in this particular case - illegal drugs - there is no such higher or greater morality that requires you to break it (as would be, say, in the situation of not telling the Nazis that you have hidden a Jewish escapee fro a concentration camp.)

Am I representing you correctly - or am I at least close? — EricH

Closer than most on TPF. As to a rule that might require a person to break a law, that's a tough one, nor can I think of one, outside of a situation of war or an equivalent.

I appreciate your thoughtful response Cohen. I’m not sure our mutual forum member has done much research into the impact of the Drug War on minority’s, or the progressive drug policies that have made a positive impact in the countries you mentioned. Yes, For the reasons I’ve already cited, our past and present drug policies, at least in the view of this individual, remain suspect.

Mr. Woods, You have called me ignorant and you follow up with “Be careful how you quack”. If your personal attack's continue, I will follow up with a complaint to the forum’s governing unit. Have a great day.

Closer than most on TPF. As to a rule that might require a person to break a law, that's a tough one, nor can I think of one, outside of a situation of war or an equivalent. — tim wood

Here's a follow up question - but if you're uncomfortable divulging personal information I would not hold it against you for not answering.

Have you ever deliberately broken a law? Have you ever knowingly exceeded the speed limit or jaywalked?

Everything but a substantive reply or response. Try the question of the OP, or my response to it. While some of your other comments seem both wise and well-informed - not all of them - none of them are on point. Your first post, I repeat it again here, remains undefended, and without response to the questions I asked you.

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies.
— Mtherapist67
Why? In what way? How? — tim wood

Ok. You’ve made your choice. I will respond accordingly.

You have been reported. I want no further comment from you.

Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic. As to jaywalking. I have never seen a sign prohibiting it. But if traffic is difficult, then why not use a crosswalk?

But my view is that there is always a moral component to complying with law. Even with seeming trivial matters. That I in my person don't always live up to the manifesto is something I do not ignore, but work on.

As to breaking more serious laws, I haven't. No virtue claimed, just luck of the draw.

And for many people who do, I wonder just what they're thinking. And the best I can do is infer that most are mostly not thinking at all.

But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral?

ethics are society's overall "right and wrong" guidelines, morality being each individual's adopted choice of "right and wrong" — THX1138

Yes, that's a worthwhile distinction to make, I think. So society's laws reflect its ethics, but morality still remains a personal thing. And I suppose we must acknowledge that it is (by definition) unethical to break a law, but not (necessarily) immoral, using the two terms as you have defined them.

But now you. In the US, taking illegal drugs, moral? Immoral? Is there any way it can be moral? — tim wood

I don't have an answer to this - I'm still trying to figure it out. That's why I'm asking questions. :smile:

Speed limits are not so simple - a whole separate topic. — tim wood

What are the criteria for deciding which laws fall into a separate topic? Many people would consider taking certain drugs under certain situations to fall into the same category as exceeding the speed limit.

It’s immoral that the Federal Government sanctions what supposedly free individuals can or cannot put into their bodies. — tim wood

Probably because that's more or less a foundational moral disposition for him: it's immoral to legally control what people can choose to do with their own bodies.

I do not believe in drugs for non-recreational purposes. :smile:

I do not believe in drugs for non-recreational purposes. :smile: — Arne

Let's hope you never break an arm or ever need major surgery. Guess that bottle of Captain Morgan will just have to do the trick. :joke:

The US's compromise with prostitution (another controversial yet pervasive issue) are brothels.

Although prostitution's "immorality" in and of itself cannot be rationalized to being "wrong" due to high risk fatality (seemingly, for the most part), perhaps use of designated "unnatural" drugs can be introduced, measured and monitored in such a controlled environment. Does anyone think the compromise can be applied?

As long as everything is safe, informed consensual and people feel menatlly secure about what they do, then any activity is ok I would say, as a first pass approximation answer sort of thing.

Probably because that's more or less a foundational moral disposition for him: it's immoral to legally control what people can choose to do with their own bodies. — Terrapin Station

Categorically? And immoral? I'll ask you the same questions I asked the author of the quote. Why immoral? In what way immoral? How immoral? The author chose not to answer. You?

So first, there are going to be stances that are at least functionally foundational in a given context for an individual. These are behaviors that people approve or disapprove of, categorically as stated, where they're not based on other stances. All morality starts from that.

approve or disapprove of, categorically as stated, where they're not based on other stances. All morality starts from that. — Terrapin Station

Disagree. There's no accounting for what some people approve/disapprove of. An individual can indeed be moral. But I'd argue that if morality starts with an individual then we need an account of what makes him or her be moral. Morality, it seems to me, is essentially communal. It requires an other.

I'll guess, no evidence, that law comes first, then morality. And it starts at some sort of tribal level. In short, the "should do/not do" of morality starts with a must do/not do, the imperative probably for some good reason. Morality, then, is not itself fundamental; it always arises out of something else.

At least part of that something else, I suppose, must be reason, however inchoate. Mixed with memory, whether personal or communal, and some kind of hope/expectation. Morality, then, in some form or other, is ancient - and evolved over a long time. This just an ad hoc model; do you have a better one?

As long as everything is safe, — Kippo

Meaning what, exactly?