|
Post by robeiae on Apr 1, 2017 14:55:42 GMT -5
I understand Don's position. I don't think he needs to "pick" one of the two options - it just depends on the law under consideration. To wit, one that jibes with one's own sense of morality versus one that doesn't. It's like... a flowchart! Sure, that's why my first reply to Don was "specifics matter, here." Obviously, there's a pretty wide gulf between jaywalking and murder. Nonetheless, in response to my claim that political obligation--of one sort or another--plays a role here, Don said this: And I honestly think that's simply not an accurate account of why most people tend not to break laws left and right. Imo, people who see themselves as citizens try to obey laws in general because of political obligation. They may not think of it in such terms, but that's what it is. If they were asked something like "do you think you should try to follow the law and if you do, why do you think that," they'd come up with an answer that is reflective of one or more theories of political obligation. Imo, Don's reasoning is ultimately no different (he's on a "natural duty" track, mostly). Political obligation theory isn't some obscure, wonky theory about some unrealized thing. It's as old as Plato (older, really). It's just an examination of the "why" behind certain typical behavior, with respect to civil society. People want to carve out narrow exception for themselves, how their actions may be consistent with political obligation, but the term still doesn't apply to them? Okay, fine. I'm not seeing it, myself. Beyond that, as I said, specific matter here, when it comes to individual laws and individual choices pertaining to the same. I think there are an awful lot of people who consider themselves to be good citizens, who operate quite obviously within a framework of political obligation, but who nonetheless break laws on occasion. To that end, they look for reasons to justify such actions, precisely because they know that they are in the wrong, based on their own world view and sense of political obligation. Of course, I'm talking laws on the jaywalking end of the spectrum, here. As to things like murder, sure people have a sense of morality that tells them this is wrong. And sure, if there wasn't a law against it most such people would still refrain from it. Imo, that's a "so what" statement. It doesn't impact the idea of political obligation in the least.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2017 18:43:20 GMT -5
You said political obligation replaces any cost/benefit analysis for most people, in response to Don's opinion that, outside of personal morality, most people make decisions about laws based on benefit vs. cost. I think Don was responding to that assertion in the bit you quoted. You seemed to conflate his response to apply to all laws, and then you asked him to pick a position.
(I personally have no idea what "most people" do. I'm not inside their heads. We need a poll or something.)
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 1, 2017 18:58:33 GMT -5
I understand Don's position. I don't think he needs to "pick" one of the two options - it just depends on the law under consideration. To wit, one that jibes with one's own sense of morality versus one that doesn't. It's like... a flowchart! Bingo. I was already past that branch in the logic. I'm arguing that the following pseudocode is most prevalent in society, and that few people ever get to the second Elsif. Begin Choice If immoral Exit Elsif estimated cost > estimated benefit Exit Elsif sense of obligation to ruling class Exit Else Do TheThingYouWantToDo End
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2017 19:56:29 GMT -5
I don't disagree with Don's take (though I take exception to the "ruling class" bit; objection! leading), but I wonder if it's just because, for the most part, it's how *I* mentally process. I can't assume it's everyone's mental process.
The other day I forgot I was supposed to go to the bank and missed the turn. The next four places that seemed perfectly reasonable to make a U-turn had the "no U-turn" signs. By the time I got to the fourth one, I said, fuck it, I'm making a U-turn. Yes, I checked my rearview mirror for cops. No, I don't feel guilty. Also yes, I understand why in some instances, making a U-turn there could be problematic, but it wasn't when I did it. (Rationalization!) Also no, I don't feel like I violated my political or societal obligation (which I do have - the societal one at least). Although, in the theme of Socrates, (a) if I had gotten a ticket, I wouldn't have disputed it and (b) I don't think my decision to break the law was somehow morally sound because "the law was wrong/unfair." I broke the law. I got away with it. (Yay me.)
I get a kick out stories where, for example, traffic lights are broken, stuck on red forever, and people will just sit there and wait. I would never do that. But obviously some number of people do.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 1, 2017 20:37:53 GMT -5
Begin Choice If immoral Exit Elsif estimated cost > estimated benefit Exit Elsif sense of obligation to ruling class Exit Else Do TheThingYouWantToDo End I object on account of... huh?
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 1, 2017 20:48:32 GMT -5
The "ruling class" bit is not merely leading, it's disingenuous. It presupposes that no sense of community or social obligation exists outside of "obedience to the ruling class."
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 1, 2017 21:09:44 GMT -5
The "ruling class" bit is not merely leading, it's disingenuous. It presupposes that no sense of community or social obligation exists outside of "obedience to the ruling class." To the contrary, I specifically recognize the distinction between civil society and coercive governing structures and refuse to conflate them. Government <> society; Political obligation <> social obligation; community <> state.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2017 21:18:28 GMT -5
The society you feel obligated toward voted for Trump. I admit I don't quite grasp what "political" obligation actually means/entails, and from some googling, neither does anyone else.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 1, 2017 21:27:09 GMT -5
The society you feel obligated toward voted for Trump. I admit I don't quite grasp what "political" obligation actually means/entails, and from some googling, neither does anyone else. People who are members of a free and civil society to which I belong, also chose to participate in a contest to decide which of two equally despicable people would be declared the leader of a coercive organization that claims to rule that society. "Society" didn't vote; individuals did. That everyone is held to the choice of a majority of votes, electoral or popular, is a bug of voting, not a feature.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 1, 2017 22:33:10 GMT -5
The society you feel obligated toward voted for Trump. I admit I don't quite grasp what "political" obligation actually means/entails, and from some googling, neither does anyone else. People who are members of a free and civil society to which I belong, also chose to participate in a contest to decide which of two equally despicable people would be declared the leader of a coercive organization that claims to rule that society. "Society" didn't vote; individuals did. That everyone is held to the choice of a majority of votes, electoral or popular, is a bug of voting, not a feature. On the contrary, it's a key feature of a society. Where individuals disagree, majority rules. Again with the "ruling" rhetoric? Don't make me agree with Amadan.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 2, 2017 6:53:14 GMT -5
People who are members of a free and civil society to which I belong, also chose to participate in a contest to decide which of two equally despicable people would be declared the leader of a coercive organization that claims to rule that society. "Society" didn't vote; individuals did. That everyone is held to the choice of a majority of votes, electoral or popular, is a bug of voting, not a feature. On the contrary, it's a key feature of a society. Where individuals disagree, majority rules. Again with the "ruling" rhetoric? Don't make me agree with Amadan. Again, I specifically recognize the distinction between civil society and coercive governing structures and refuse to conflate them. Government <> society; Political obligation <> social obligation; community <> state. Srly? When you get together with a group of friends and decide to go out for pizza, you vote and make everybody eat the same thing on their pizza? Or do you let small groups form voluntarily, so that some split a veggie, and some split a meat-lovers, and Contrary Don can order a meatball sub without being ostracized, incarcerated, fined or murdered? In a social setting, everyone can have whatever they want on their pizza, or have a meatball sub instead. If society ran by "majority rules," then when you and your friends went out for pizza, you'd vote on toppings and FORCE everyone to eat what the group chose. Voluntary interaction can only be "trumped" by the use of force. There's government, right there, no kid gloves, no "better good." In the final analysis, the choice between civil society and government rule is the choice between the right to choose and no choice at all. Conflate civil behavior and the initiation of force at your own risk. The long-term cost is the subjugation of civil interaction to the whims of the ruling class.
|
|
|
Post by Christine on Apr 2, 2017 7:55:08 GMT -5
You do realize you just compared societal obligation to a pizza.
|
|
|
Post by Amadan on Apr 2, 2017 9:38:11 GMT -5
Conflate civil behavior and the initiation of force at your own risk. The long-term cost is the subjugation of civil interaction to the whims of the ruling class. Every governing structure has "coercive power" or it has no power to govern. You and your friends may be able to work out what kind of pizza you want without forcing anyone to pay for or eat something they don't like, but above the level of a pizza order, every "civil society," even small ones, is going to run into problems when people are at loggerheads over how to do something and someone has to win and someone has to lose. At that point, you either have a governing structure to settle the matter - which by necessity must have the ability to force the loser to acquiesce to their judgment even if he doesn't want to - or else things will be settled by who has the quicker draw.
|
|
|
Post by Vince524 on Apr 2, 2017 11:28:57 GMT -5
On the contrary, it's a key feature of a society. Where individuals disagree, majority rules. Again with the "ruling" rhetoric? Don't make me agree with Amadan. Again, I specifically recognize the distinction between civil society and coercive governing structures and refuse to conflate them. Government <> society; Political obligation <> social obligation; community <> state. Srly? When you get together with a group of friends and decide to go out for pizza, you vote and make everybody eat the same thing on their pizza? Or do you let small groups form voluntarily, so that some split a veggie, and some split a meat-lovers, and Contrary Don can order a meatball sub without being ostracized, incarcerated, fined or murdered? In a social setting, everyone can have whatever they want on their pizza, or have a meatball sub instead. If society ran by "majority rules," then when you and your friends went out for pizza, you'd vote on toppings and FORCE everyone to eat what the group chose. Voluntary interaction can only be "trumped" by the use of force. There's government, right there, no kid gloves, no "better good." In the final analysis, the choice between civil society and government rule is the choice between the right to choose and no choice at all. Conflate civil behavior and the initiation of force at your own risk. The long-term cost is the subjugation of civil interaction to the whims of the ruling class. The problem is, if you let everyone have it's own way, it's lawlessness. Of course, there's the idea that things that don't need to be regulated at the Federal level, are done at the State level. And therefore the choices made in California don't affect the choices in Utah. And of course, even counties can have individual laws. But more and more, we're federalizing these things.
|
|
|
Post by Don on Apr 2, 2017 16:00:00 GMT -5
Conflate civil behavior and the initiation of force at your own risk. The long-term cost is the subjugation of civil interaction to the whims of the ruling class. Every governing structure has "coercive power" or it has no power to govern. You and your friends may be able to work out what kind of pizza you want without forcing anyone to pay for or eat something they don't like, but above the level of a pizza order, every "civil society," even small ones, is going to run into problems when people are at loggerheads over how to do something and someone has to win and someone has to lose. At that point, you either have a governing structure to settle the matter - which by necessity must have the ability to force the loser to acquiesce to their judgment even if he doesn't want to - or else things will be settled by who has the quicker draw. Opposition to the initiation of force is not opposition to contract resolution or the use of force in defense, or even the recovery of judgments. The Law as a system of justice is logically (and to me, morally) defensible. The Law as an excuse to control free people in their peaceful voluntary interaction with others is not.
|
|