(no title)
weavejester | 4 months ago
No, I'm pointing out that we need to use our brains when considering glib generalizations.
If you want a more accurate phrase, you could say that:
"People have a moral duty to oppose unjust laws, beginning with legal avenues of opposition, followed by non-violence civil disobedience, followed by violent uprising as a last resort, all while giving a reasonable period of time between steps that is governed by the severity of the injustice being perpetrated, weighed against the actions being taken to prevent it."
However, that doesn't exactly roll off the tongue. The point of a phrase like "Americans have a duty to disobey unjust laws" is to trade precision for concision. It's up to you to extrapolate what people mean, or just ask them to clarify. I'm guessing this is something you find difficult?
> You didn't have to break any laws for me to help you vote for gay marriage. We all knew it was wrong that's why it's legal.
What do you mean by this? It was only in 2010 that the majority of Americans finally believed that same-sex marriage should be allowed.
If we accept that same-sex marriage is moral, then we must also accept that the majority of Americans prior to 2010 were wrong. Similarly, people were wrong in the past about racial segregation, women's rights and so forth.
Doesn't this indicate to you that morality is not just what the majority think?
> And they take longer when you derail society into thinking that people who support gay marriage are violent law breakers.
Why are you so obsessed with bringing violence into this? At every point I've emphasized that violence is a last resort, and that breaking the law does not automatically imply being violent.
> Just accept that you're not smarter.
You've missed my point.
I didn't say I was smarter than lawmakers; I pointed out that by your criteria I was, thereby implying that your criteria was flawed.
It was a self-deprecating rhetorical device, but I see it flew over your head, so let me try to speak more plainly:
I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority, because to do so would imply that it was moral in 1950 to persecute people by the color of their skin, and that it was moral in 1980 to persecute people by their sexual orientation. I reject that.
I do believe that people have a duty to act morally, even if this means breaking the law. That's not to say that people shouldn't exhaust legal means of protest first; legal protests are less personally risky and in free societies can be very effective. But I can certainly think of scenarios where doing the right thing would necessitate breaking the law, and in these situations, people have a duty to do what's right.
trimethylpurine|4 months ago
It's not difficult, it's incorrect. It means something completely different.
>Doesn't this indicate to you that morality is not just what the majority think?
No. It indicates that there is no such thing! And you're not qualified to be the arbiter of the subjective devices we call societal justice and morality all by yourself. You must be convincing to the many. And only then can you have a decent hope of being considered moral.
>I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority.
Then you agree with all the most reviled villains in history who also knew better what is moral for everyone else.
>...would imply that it was moral in 1950 to persecute people by the color of their skin...
Again you're assuming that the law dictated what was moral, but it's the opposite causal relationship. Law follows morality over many years. Morality doesn't follow the law. But we must work within the law to adjust it over time to fit what the all consider moral. Until that happens it won't change, and especially not typically by violence. Just the opposite, violence can be used by the law to empower itself, but it cannot be used by the law breaker in the same way because it brands you a villain damaging your ability to convince the majority. That's because the majority gave that power to the law, not to you. Only in a democracy is that true.
>I do believe people have a duty to act morally...
Me too! But clearly that's subjective. Here we are disagreeing on what that is. The law was invented to settle exactly these such cases.
>Why are you so obsessed with bringing violence into this?
To me it looks like you're obsessed with bringing violence into this, and you haven't thought it out far enough to see that.
Let's play this out. You break the law. People, known as law enforcement, who chose of their own free will a violent career path will arrive with loaded firearms. These individuals are intentionally chosen for their lack of mental ability and for their willingness to follow orders and endure violent and dangerous situations, aggressively.
I can guess what the next step looks like. Don't play stupid. So can you.
weavejester|4 months ago
Does this mean that you have no internal conscience? You just go along with what the majority of society considers to be moral?
You've indicated you believe that same-sex marriage is moral, but before that became a majority opinion, did you believe the opposite?
>> I don't believe that morality is defined by the majority.
> Then you agree with all the most reviled villains in history who also knew better what is moral for everyone else.
You mean like Jesus of Nazareth or Buddha?
The belief that morality isn't defined by the majority is an extremely common viewpoint. Probably the most common viewpoint, since its one shared by every major religion.
> Let's play this out. You break the law. People, known as law enforcement, who chose of their own free will a violent career path will arrive with loaded firearms. These individuals are intentionally chosen for their lack of mental ability and for their willingness to follow orders and endure violent and dangerous situations, aggressively.
So America's police force is so corrupt and violent that they'd think nothing of gunning down unarmed protestors in cold blood.
Why do you think that following the law would stop this?
I'm honestly trying to understand your thought process here. On the one hand you imply that most police officers are a hair trigger away from firing on a crowd; on the other, you seem to be insinuating that a individual's adherence to the law is an absolute defense.