Illegal = Immoral

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Biblical morality: illegal=immoral unless the illegal thing has been commanded by God, In which case obedience to God preempts obedience to law.

If you don't care about Biblically, then by what standard?

Constitutionally...

 

[Abbadon]

Constitutionally...

Or socially,
------
It's been illegal to be a Christian when Christianity was first getting started, but was that immoral?

There is a difference between Ethics and Morals.

I choose to do good, that's moral; I choose not to, that's immoral.

I choose to do what I'm told to by society, that's ethical; I choose not to, that's unethical...

I choose to be aethical, to obay only the laws that are moral, rebel against the immoral ones, and ignore the ones that are neither moral or immoral.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

Or socially,
------
It's been illegal to be a Christian when Christianity was first getting started, but was that immoral?

There is a difference between Ethics and Morals.

I choose to do good, that's moral; I choose not to, that's immoral.

I choose to do what I'm told to by society, that's ethical; I choose not to, that's unethical...

I choose to be aethical, to obay only the laws that are moral, rebel against the immoral ones, and ignore the ones that are neither moral or immoral.

Yes, in any country that isn't blessed with a constitution.

 

[Abbadon]

Yes, in any country that isn't blessed with a constitution.

I'll ignore any law in the constitution that doesn't seem moral to me.

It is a set of laws like any other.

 

[Thirst_For_Knowledge]

I'll ignore any law in the constitution that doesn't seem moral to me.

It is a set of laws like any other.

That is your choice.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

How do you define between good and bad laws? If, generally, laws are put in place to protect people, must we choose which side to favour as 'good'?

Do you have any examples you could share? I'm interested in this becoming clearer...

Jim Crow laws.

Rushworth M. Kidder is part of a think tank on ethics suggests evaluating laws (and other actions) based on honesty, respect, responsibility, fairness, and compassion.

If you don't think they further those values, and are in fact antithetical to them then you should seriously consider acting against those laws/actions. Forming a consensus is a good defense against individual prejudice but is vulnerable to societal prejudice.

There is no simple answer but I think the above is useful.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

Or lets argue that nature of the State. On what grounds does a State have the right to pass/enforce laws, collect taxes etc?

If you want a literal answer to that question, then on the basis of the Westphalia accord which effectively invented the nation state.

If however you want a philosophical answer, then the state has no such right.

Ghost

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

]Or lets argue that nature of the State. On what grounds does a State have the right to pass/enforce laws, collect taxes etc?

If you want a literal answer to that question, then on the basis of the Westphalia accord which effectively invented the nation state.

If however you want a philosophical answer, then the state has no such right.
Ghost

When you get old enough you can organizes people who don't like the state and try to disband it.
If you fail, ah well, there's the door.
What gives you the right to say we don't have the right to form or support a gov't?
Are you living in an Hermitage self-sufficient in every way?
Your first 13 years endows you with such a debt, such a dependence for survival, comfort, education, enjoyment, to so many different people and to so many institutions that to pretend you can turn around and say "you have no right to restrict what I do and no right to tax me" is a joke.

You didn't choose to be born?
Well you could go kill yourself. But the reality is that you were and you did run up that debt.

 

[Abbadon]

But what if the government demands that you pay more than you took, including interest? What if you payed your debt? The government will always say that you haven't finished, and that they're charging a fair price.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

But what if the government demands that you pay more than you took, including interest? What if you payed your debt? The government will always say that you haven't finished, and that they're charging a fair price.

That is what voting and organizing is about.

The gov't is an imperfect extention of the society to which you owe your continued existance.

If you feel you have paid back the debt and don't wish to contribute any more, as I said, there's the door. Buy an island, outfit yourself and travel to the wilds, find a country you can bribe yourself into a position of power.

And when you want your tooth cavity taken care of you'll just have to convince some dentist to meet you on your terms.

Even laying aside the debt you incurr growing up, for 99% of people every single thing they do depends on and impacts dozens of other people. Of course those people have a right to regulate and tax what you do.