Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 04:30:07 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
256 times
|
| |
|
|
Snippy snip
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> 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.
Can you elaborate on this? Slavery is morally wrong and it doesn't matter to
me what the law says about it. A government that abides it (yes, even the US
government of the time) doesn't have consent of the governed in that area,
right?
So why do you say that it's OK for the government to oppress?
The abolitionists knew that there was a downside for their moral stance if
they got caught. That's different than saying that the government was right
to punish them.
c.f. Professor Bernardo De la Paz's stance in _Harsh Mistress_ (a fictional
character, but an eloquent one on this topic)
c.f. jury nullification.
> 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 :)
Maybe. I suspect many bank robbers know their actions are wrong.
++Lar
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
