I think it's good for a moral compass to be partly dictated by the state. One should not assume that they know the reasoning behind every law and disobey it simply because they disagree. There is value in just obeying the law unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise. The law is intended to be a protection, and it can only do so if we obey it for it's own sake.
That said, I realize that many of the issues discussed on HN of late have been cases where the state also considers itself above the rule of law - and I think that's far worse. So I don't mean to argue with you - just saying that breaking the law needs to be a very conscious decision you do for a good reason. And you should be prepared to accept some consequences.
> I think it's good for a moral compass to be partly dictated by the state. One should not assume that they know the reasoning behind every law and disobey it simply because they disagree.
I find that sentiment deeply troubling. I think there is value to disobeying rules you disagree with, and even going out of your way to do so, assuming you're aware of the obvious risks.
> There is value in just obeying the law unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise.
Well, sure, but the reason is self-interest, not morality.
> cases where the state also considers itself above the rule of law
To me, that's a nonsensical phrase. The state creates, interprets, and enforces laws, so it is by definition above the rule of law (or perhaps one could say that the state is the rule of law).
I actually agree with him, but I'd word it somewhat differently: Rules and legislation are made for a reason. Before you break a rule for your own self-interest or due to your own beliefs, make an as big an effort as you can to imagine how and why the rule is sensible and how following it could actually be better. Then, break the rule.
Of course this can sometimes take about 2 seconds and you conclude that the rule is utter crap in your situation's context.
There are laws of people ("no decapitating moron drivers"), laws of society ("no imploding buildings just to see what will happen", "no dumping your waste in the river"), and laws of multinational corporations ("no copying data, no tampering when we say no tampering, everybody must buy private health insurance, ...").
It's easier, and more valid, to ignore laws at the high end of the abstract-o-sphere.
> It's easier, and more valid, to ignore laws at the high end of the abstract-o-sphere.
This is an interesting proposition... I hadn't really considered the relationship between validity and abstraction in the context of law. What's your reasoning behind it? Has this been written about?
"The law is intended to be a protection, and it can only do so if we obey it for it's own sake."
Most law is pretty obviously mostly just there because of special interests at one time or another--remember, "law" refers to both "thou shalt not kill" as well "all sidewalks with thus and such distance of a school must have thus and such..." as well as "thou shall not commit sodomy".
These are all laws with different purposes, different origins, and different moral backing--to pretend that we ought to follow them, just because they are laws, is rules fetishism.
>The law is intended to be a protection, and it can only do so if we obey it for it's own sake. There is value in just obeying the law unless you have a very good reason to do otherwise. The law is intended to be a protection, and it can only do so if we obey it for it's own sake.
This sounds like blind obedience. "If patriotism were defined, not as blind obedience to government, not as submissive worship to flags and anthems, but rather as love of one's country, one's fellow citizens (all over the world), as loyalty to the principles of justice and democracy, then patriotism would require us to disobey our government, when it violated those principles." Howard Zinn
"One should not assume that they know the reasoning behind every law and disobey it simply because they disagree"
The reasoning behind a law is irrelevant. The effect of the law is what matters -- the effect on individual liberty, the effect on society, etc. Unjust laws are laws that are harmful to individuals, particular groups of individuals, or society as a whole -- and it is our civic duty to violate those laws, and to violate them to such an extent that they become impractical to enforce.
Unfortunately the government has learned to keep people in line with fear. We now live in an age of militarized law enforcement; it only takes one widely publicized story about someone having soldiers attack their home to get the rest of the population back in line. You see it with drug prohibition, you see it with hacktivism, and you will see it with every tyrannical law that the government enacts.
I find it a little offensive that because I agree with a certain law it means my morality is dictated by the state. I'm sorry that I believe that if you're a repeat offender who just hacked a computer system and made off with nearly a million dollars in fraudulent credit card transactions you should go to prison. I haven't yet decided whether or not I think 10 years is too long for that.
I think if you believe people should go to prisons, your morality is dictated by the state.
If you find that offensive, maybe you should make an effort to clear your cached thoughts[0], and recompute everything you think about prisons. If you haven't done this at least once in your life, it's probable that you have a thought in your cache that was just inserted there by some authority figure while you were young enough not to know better.
"I find it a little offensive that because I agree with a certain law it means my morality is dictated by the state."
You misunderstand, and from there you argue based on your misunderstanding. No one is saying that just because you agree with a certain "law it means [your] morality is dictated by the state.", rather, your morality just happens to overlap with the state, meaning you are past that stage of moral development (at least regarding that particular issue).
Also, your claim of offense and then your sarcastic apology don't do anything to further the conversation, avoid such rhetorical sub-tactics in the future.
In the future you ought to avoid telling people how to communicate their thoughts. I didn't ask for your advice and from what I can tell you understood my point. To me that looks like successful communication.
Many (perhaps even most) people can be talked into the later Kohlberg states of moral development. This is basically what tends happens in the lead up to a category of laws being rejected by society and eventually dispensed with.
That's an optimistic way of looking at it. The pessimistic way is that people eventually see enough authority figures endorsing new stances that they change their own stance.
Obviously nobody explicitly thinks their morality is dictated by the state/church/parents/authority-figure, but in reality most people would agree with virtually everything an authority figure would say, especially if you look at what people actually do rather than just listening to what they profess.
