Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:22:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
246 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> > But similarly, the government is equally
> > 'right' in punishing you.
>
> You mean that you should "peacefully accept the consequences", yes?
Hmm.. not necessarily, but most probably. Mostly it's to say that I don't
have a problem with you breaking the law, so long as you don't put moral
fault on the government for punishing your lack of adherence to it.
Basically, should those who helped the underground railroad in the late
1700's and early 1800's have necessarily volunteered themselves as having
broken the law? No. Should they have said "you are wrong to imprison me"?
No. Or at least only if they're arguing with the law they broke and not the
actual punishment. But by that token, you might intuit that I mean something
like "it's ok if you can get away with it"-- I.E. that a bank robber is
somehow in the moral right when avoiding the police. That's not quite what I
mean, but perhaps that's only because of the picture it paints. I'll qualify
that example further because the bank robber is most likely not breaking
what he feels to be an unjust law. If he DOES feel that the right of
property is unjust, well then he's fine. I don't have a moral problem with
him. But now we're getting back to my moral theory argument... I should just
quit while I'm ahead :)
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
