Friday Debate: When your morality conflicts with legality which wins?

[LlazarusLlong]

And do you invoke the Eleventh Commandment in such circumstances?

[valerie Inshan]

I'm a natural born sinner and proud of it. I do not have any morality and legacy is the least of my concerns. I do conform to the 11th commandment. And, I have not been caught (so far).

Have a great weekend Llazarus!

(Edited for typos: I know you hate them so much... )

[Caitlin Tobias]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

And do you trust invoke the Eleventh Commandment in such circumstances?

---

I do not practice the Eleventh Commandment, I just had to google it and all that,  but in case of a conflict stated as in your OP title, for me legality would win.

 

 

[valerie Inshan]

---

Caitlin Tobias wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

And do you trust invoke the Eleventh Commandment in such circumstances?

---

I do not practice the Eleventh Commandment, I just had to google it and all that,  but in case of a conflict stated as in your OP title, for me legality would win.

 

 

---

 I had to google it too Cait!

[Amethyst Jetaime]

While not religious, I do have a personal morality that I adhere to.  I don't always agree with all laws and sometimes feel that a law is just flat out wrong. Mostly when the law conflicts with my personal morality,  I'll invoke the 11th, although I will engage in acts of civil disobedience over important issues.  Just because a law is a law, doesn't always make it right and when people suffer because of it, I feel a responsibility to set things right.

 

[Derek Torvalar]

God Llazgun, do you think this thread will go very far before it gets zapped?

Though I have no doubt it will certainly be amusing and provide me with a few guffaws.

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Derek Torvalar wrote:

God Llazgun, do you think this thread will go very far before it gets zapped?

---

Why Derek, I am not expecting any Lindens to participate . . .

. . . although I would be delighted if they were brave enough to do so.

[irihapeti]

Emile Durkheim argues that crime is normal and meaningful in society. That a crime-free society is abnormal and without meaning. That crime is a legal definition and not a ethical one. That law is meaningless without crime

+

i agree with his (Mr Durheim) argument. Given a conflict between a ethical position and a legal one then I will choose the ethical position and fight for it over the legal one

example: I will engage in pacific advocation and engage in civil disobedience contrary to law. Civil disobedience may be a crime in a civil society. But is not uncivil in itself

I will not tho engage in uncivil disobedience meaning destruction/defacement of property or harm another person. I will never advocate or support that others do this either: Like take uncivil action in a civil society, a action which is in itself unethical

+

Mr Durkheim is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89mile_Durkheim

his paper that people might want to read is: "On The Normality of Crime"

a discussion (among others) is here: https://kpulawandsociety.wordpress.com/2012/10/13/crime-is-normal/

+

ps. I dont have any morals. I gave them back to the Church (:

so now being a amoral person I just try be ethical as best I can. Which apparently makes me a sinner according to the priest I gave them back to. He said he was going to pray for me. Seeing as how I wont pray for myself anymore (:

[LlazarusLlong]

Durkheim has it the wrong way around. Crime is meaningless without law.

The idiot also believed that anything that exists in society must serve a beneficial purpose.

So how does that explain paedophilia, genocide, and, worst of all, kissing a girl when she'd prefer it was Johnny Depp doing it?

[Oh, and also, please leave organised religion out of any discussion of morality; the former has nothing to do with the latter.]

[Derek Torvalar]

If it were easy then everyone would do it.

From Milgram:

"The legal and philosophic aspects of obedience are of enormous importance, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations. I set up a simple experiment at Yale University to test how much pain an ordinary citizen would inflict on another person simply because he was ordered to by an experimental scientist. Stark authority was pitted against the subjects' [participants'] strongest moral imperatives against hurting others, and, with the subjects' [participants'] ears ringing with the screams of the victims, authority won more often than not. The extreme willingness of adults to go to almost any lengths on the command of an authority constitutes the chief finding of the study and the fact most urgently demanding explanation.

Ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terrible destructive process. Moreover, even when the destructive effects of their work become patently clear, and they are asked to carry out actions incompatible with fundamental standards of morality, relatively few people have the resources needed to resist authority."

One's morality tends to only extend as far as to their own self-interest. With 'the Law' used as the rationalization for the explanation for their behaviour or absence thereof. Self-interest may be proximal, it is someone elses responsibility, or distal, ie the further something is away from the daily experience of the individual the less likely they are to give a damn. The rationale being the right to self-determination and ethno-relativity; re the Rwandan Genocide.

I have no illusions that the vast majority of the people espousing their oppressive positivity and persecutory optimism (see what I did there) have very little compunction to willingly exact deadly force on another regardless of the verisimilitude of the justification.

[Paul Hexem]

When your morality conflicts with legality which wins?

Morality every time, twice on Sundays.

 

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Gadget Portal wrote:

When your morality conflicts with legality which wins?

Morality every time, twice on Sundays.

 

---

I said morality, not immorality . . .

[irihapeti]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

Durkheim has it the wrong way around. Crime is meaningless without law.

The idiot also believed that anything that exists in society must serve a beneficial purpose.

So how does that explain paedophilia, genocide, and, worst of all, kissing a girl when she'd prefer it was Johnny Depp doing it?

[Oh, and also, please leave organised religion out of any discussion of morality; the former has nothing to do with the latter.]

---

Mr Durkheim doesnt argue that everything must serve a beneficial purpose. You are misunderstanding what the argument is

he argues that crime serves a beneficial purpose. It being a legal definition. The benefit is that at any given time as the society evolves, we can measure what is proper conduct for the society and what is improper. And regulate conduct by law if necessary. Is a fundamental this of every society. To define improper and act on this knowledge

for things like you mention: Are they proper or improper for society members to engage in? Yes or No. When No then law.

the application of law isnt a moral judgement. Is a judgement on conduct. Since the late 1950s western societies have been moving away from laws premised on morality to laws premised on conduct. This is a good thing I think. It makes for sound law that stands the test of time. Societal mores can and do change. What is proper, what is ethical does not

+

the teachings and disciplines of the Church are morals based. You cant exclude the effect this has on a society whose morals have been shaped by the Church over many centuries. You can but when so then any argument is abstract. Like without any relationship to the actual realities of the society

here is a Cambridge Union Society debate which doesnt argue in the abstract. The proposition: "This House Believes Organised Religion Has No Place In The 21st Century"

the last debater Douglas Murray is worth a listen I think. His argument on this topic anyways. I dont agree with a lot of what Mr Murray argues on other topics. On this topic tho he makes a compelling argument

compelling enough that the Society members present voted against the proposition

ps. Cambridge is your alma mater yes??

[LlazarusLlong]

---

irihapeti wrote:

Mr Durkheim doesnt argue that everything must serve a beneficial purpose. You are misunderstanding what the argument is

he argues that crime serves a beneficial purpose. It being a legal definition. The benefit is that at any given time as the society evolves, we can measure what is proper conduct for the society and what is improper. And regulate conduct by law if necessary. Is a fundamental this of every society. To define improper and act on this knowledge

---

Durkheim has a huge problem, to which you are  implicitly paying lip service, namely, that there is no such thing as "society".

"Society" is what the ruling elite use as a name for that which they enjoy having power over.

Any benefits will be towards the short-term, and to an extent medium-term - as in the long-term we are all dead, as JM Keynes pointed out - benefit of this all-potent cadre. Proper conduct is anything that will maintain the position of those in power, although they themselves may not need to conduct themselves according to the laws they instigate - take, for example, that the Queen of England has no driving licence, has never passed a driving test, and drives cars that have no registration plates, all of which would be crimes for plebeians.

Regulation of the weak by legal means is simply the devolved and delegated modern version of "droit de seigneur".

[At least you should be thankful that "droit de prelassement" is no longer considered "proper conduct". This involved a priest being allowed to disembowel one of his congregation to warm his feet in.]

 

[LlazarusLlong]

---

irihapeti wrote:

the teachings and disciplines of the Church are morals based. You cant exclude the effect this has on a society whose morals have been shaped by the Church over many centuries.

---

I am not sure which "church" you are referring to, but the leaders of the organised religions that I know about have all historically fallen into that category of power elite I have described above.

The "morals" that they have invented and inflicted upon the great unwashed (and uneducated, when they had the power to withhold teaching) were devices by which they could maintain a stranglehold over the behaviour of their subjects. It is noteworthy that many of those who castigated "sinners" seem never to have felt the need to satisfy "moral" criteria themselves, as scandal after scandal in modern times has demonstrated, and I would find it a persuasive presumption that taking advantage of a position of power would have been habitual  behaviour in less modern times.

[irihapeti]

a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain

a person can be an inhabitant of a territory and not be subject to the laws of the domain. Example: a person from another territorial/societal domain who has diplomatic immunity

without being this person then all others are considered members of the society. Even when they might not want to be

+

as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society

[irihapeti]

by "Church" I was meaning organised religion. Christian, Muslim, etc

+

i dont disagree that religion-based morality has not been good for us as human beings on a societal structural level. Is encouraging to me that we are moving away from this, at least in how the Parliament, Congress, etc institutions make law

that a person may wish to base their own moral code on a religious foundation is fine by me. I just dont think this foundation should be applied to everyone by law given the multiplicity of religious foundations

is there a place in the 21st century for organised religion? Yes there is. On a personal level for them who would choose it for themself   

[LlazarusLlong]

---

irihapeti wrote:

a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain

---

Your definition has become circular.

And therefore renders your argument meaningless.

[LlazarusLlong]

---

irihapeti wrote:

a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain

as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society

---

Now you are contradicting yourself.

First you say a society is composed of those who are subject to the territory's laws.

Then you admit that the Queen of England is not subject to the territory's laws.

Then you claim that she is still a member of that society.

[Drake1 Nightfire]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

And do you invoke the Eleventh Commandment in such circumstances?

---

" Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

why would i invoke that?

[LlazarusLlong]

---

Drake1 Nightfire wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

And do you invoke the Eleventh Commandment in such circumstances?

---

" Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republican."

why would i invoke that?

---

Reagan always had problems reading his lines, didn't he.

His speechwriters also forgot that you should always maintain a separation  between state and church.

And there had already existed an Eleventh Commandment long before bad actors became President of the USA.

Here is the full list, according to my author:

#1 – Thou shalt pay public homage to the god favored by the majority without giggling or even smiling behind your hand.

#2 – Thou shalt not make any graven image of a sort that would annoy the powers-that-be or rival the official god.

#3 – Thou shalt not take the name of thy Lord God in vain or language which will offend the powers-that-be.

#4 – Go to Church on Sundays and Holy Days. Smile and be pleasant but not too smarmily a hypocrite. Don’t let children disrupt the sanctity of the day. Support the Church with deeds and money, but not too conspicuously.

#5 – Honor thy Father and thy Mother where anyone can see you. But once you leave home, live your own life. Don’t let them lead you around by the nose.

#6 – Thou shalt not commit murder, which means killing wrongfully. Other sorts of killing come in several flavors and each sort must be analyzed independently.

#7 – Thou shalt not get caught committing adultery. Don’t get pregnant or catch a Social Disease. Do not shame your spouse and family in public.

#8 – Thou shalt not steal because of pride in yourself. However, like killing, exceptions may come along and must be analyzed each time. i.e. Stealing to feed children or save a life.

#9 – Thou shalt not tell lies that can hurt other people, but also not tell the unvarnished Truth which may do as much damage.

#10 – Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s possessions or spouse openly lest they get suspicious or angry.

#11 – Thou shalt not get caught.

[irihapeti]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain

as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society

---

Now you are contradicting yourself.

First you say a society is composed of those who are subject to the territory's laws.

Then you admit that the Queen of England is not subject to the territory's laws.

Then you claim that she is still a member of that society.

---

yes. It is a contradiction

is a reality of church-based law making. The sovereign in the monarchist tradition is appointed by "God". An appointment by birthright (divine right) codified in law and accepted by the subjects

unlike in the republican tradition where the Head of State is elected by the people

that subjected people accept the rule of divine right and subject themselves to it doesnt negate the sovereign's place in the society. If anything it reinforces their place. The point you were making earlier

[LlazarusLlong]

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain

as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society

---

Now you are contradicting yourself.

First you say a society is composed of those who are subject to the territory's laws.

Then you admit that the Queen of England is not subject to the territory's laws.

Then you claim that she is still a member of that society.

---

yes. It is a contradiction

is a reality of church-based law making. The sovereign in the monarchist tradition is appointed by "God". An appointment by birthright (divine right) codified in law and accepted by the subjects

unlike in the republican tradition where the Head of State is elected by the people

that subjected people accept the rule of divine right and subject themselves to it doesnt negate the sovereign's place in the society. If anything it reinforces their place. The point you were making earlier

---

Things I deny the existence of, inter alia: Society, God

Things I accept the existence of: The Queen as part of the ruling elite as a result of her ancestors killing their opponents.

[irihapeti]

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

---

LlazarusLlong wrote:

---

irihapeti wrote:

a society in this context is the inhabitants of a territory (societal domain) subject to the rules/laws of the domain

as your example with the Queen of England shows. Not all laws are applied equally to all inhabitants. That a law treats her differently from her subjects doesnt make her not a member of the society

---

Now you are contradicting yourself.

First you say a society is composed of those who are subject to the territory's laws.

Then you admit that the Queen of England is not subject to the territory's laws.

Then you claim that she is still a member of that society.

---

yes. It is a contradiction

is a reality of church-based law making. The sovereign in the monarchist tradition is appointed by "God". An appointment by birthright (divine right) codified in law and accepted by the subjects

unlike in the republican tradition where the Head of State is elected by the people

that subjected people accept the rule of divine right and subject themselves to it doesnt negate the sovereign's place in the society. If anything it reinforces their place. The point you were making earlier

---

Things I deny the existence of, inter alia: Society, God

Things I accept the existence of: The Queen as part of the ruling elite as a result of her ancestors killing their opponents.

---

on your first point

can conceptually deny society as much as you like. It dont change the reality

change the word even and the reality is the same for the people in it. whanau, hapu, iwi, family, clan, tribe, state, nation, domain. They are all other words for society. A group of people territorially bound subject to the rules/laws of the group/domain

is your reality as well. You are an English subject. Subject to the laws of England. Whether you accept this or not, conceptually or otherwise, dont change your reality. It will only change when the reality changes

+

on your second. I expand the discussion

back in the day English Monarchs often had to defend or gain the monarchy thru feat of arms. Henry VII (Henry Tudor) was the last person to be acclaimed English Monarch on the battlefield when he defeated Richard III (Richard York). His claim was that he had divine right to rule moreso than Richard. Something he affirmed by defeating Richard. God was on his side or so he claimed

the 3 things that Henry Tudor did on claiming the Crown which influenced much of how English society is shaped today, were:

1) He abolished the Lords then right to mount private armies. Armies who fought in the name of the Lord and not the Crown. He decided to do this when on the day of the battle, Northumberland and Stanley sat out the fight and watched while he and Richard fought. This after Richard had also been betrayed by Norfolk who had already attacked his (Richard) main army from the rear

Northumberland and Stanley joined the battle after determining who was most likely to win with their help. They joined the battle on his (Henry) side. They could just as easily have joined Richard. Henry Tudor made sure that forever after a Lord would not ever be in this position again. To be powerful enough to decide who would be English Monarch in this way

thru the abolition of private armies the establishment of the national armed forces became a reality, a standing army loyal only to the Crown and subsequently the Nation

2) He married Elizabeth York uniting the Houses of Lancaster and York. Securing the divine succession for his family and heirs, without contest. The English Crown has never been acclaimed on the battlefield since. There were plotters and pretenders who came later but they never went anywhere

3) He introduced the Justice of the Peace system. An unpaid position (appointed by the Crown and not the local Lord) to administer Crown justice in their areas. A position also open to freemen of non-noble standing. That a freeman could administer justice even over a noble (albeit minor nobles at that time) was a huge societal change

the JP system was the beginning of the establishment (and power) of the middle-class

[Ren Toxx]

Depends on how long the potential jail sentence, and how many amenities during it.