Moral obligiation of obeying the laws. Versus .Legal obligation of obeying the laws.
What if the laws are unjust or unclear?
In the case of saluting the usa flag, was made into law in 1940, then someone didn’t salute the flag, and went into trial, finally supreme court made a decision it is unconstitutional. Therefore, those who disobeyed this law was found consititional, while others not.
What about if you are being fine over 1 million or imprison 5 years, because your buisness caught on fire, and damage some parts of the state, and other buisness?
Martin luther king, sent into prision. Ghandi, refusing to accept the judgment of the court trial, of refusing to paid the fines, was it because of the press was there?
IF you think something is unjust, should you continue to follow your judgment even the supreme court has made its decisions?
Martin Luther King speaks directly to this when he said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
The courts should reflect the will of society. Sometimes they get it wrong.
JrnymnX: Martin Luther King speaks directly to this when he said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
The courts should reflect the will of society. Sometimes they get it wrong."
K: sometimes the will of society is wrong. For example, slavery
existed for generations based on the will of society and it was
wrong. The court is meant to temper the will of society and
do what is right regardless of who it hurts or benefits.
Justice is blind, or so I have been told.
Now as far as the court being wrong, unfortunately we have
to live with the court’s fuck ups, for example gore vs bush in
2000. The cost to the country has been immense, but
that is the way it works. The other hideous case I can recall
is the dred scott case in 1857 which directly lead the way to
the civil war in the U.S.
Dworkin’s .
To follow your judgment that the law is unjust, once decision is done by SC, keep on following your judgment.
Or Rawls, civil disobedience where it affects the majority that the sense of justice is misinterpreted.
ex. As I said before the case of saluting a flag was made into a law, but Supreme court overrule itself, because the defendant kept on not obeying this law.
can the will of society be morally wrong?
certainly. it can take decades to change though. like slavery, it took a very long time for the majority to believe strongly enough in emancipation.
now as a quick disclaimer, we are basing these right and wrong’s on our current standards. fast forward 100 years and what will society then be saying about our current one? will they laugh at our permitance of abortions? or maybe our death penalty?
there is always a higher law that guides us. as the generations have passed, from the inception of homo sapiens to now, i have seen a slow but consistent increase in morality. individuals have always been scattered throughout history that have followed a higher moral code. to me, these folks had recognized this higher law. some call it religion, god, the golden rule, humanity, or whatever term you think best captures the idea of treating everything with utmost respect and a humble attitude.
Justice and injustice mixed together? America ( democracy ) a mixed society?
IT is what makes you study or obligated in observing this moral code. If there was no experiment, there would be just acting who they are and listening to what other listening to.
Morality is the way in which people can live a happy life–with the gradual advance of power, it is easier to assert moral standards. A moral obligation is the best way to help people; law should therefore be subordinate to moral obligation, as it is the result of it. However, the law reflects the history and precedent of morality, and thus carries a lot of weight that one individual’s morality does not.
Legally, the US Supreme Court is the final verdict, but the underlying moral compass of society ultimately directs it.
I don’t know of any other basis to assert that society is wrong. If that same society looks back on its beliefs, and thinks they were mistaken, you’ve got the basis for saying they were wrong. There isn’t an absolute measuring stick to use, just the views of people to judge the past views of people, so, quite naturally, society can be wrong.
What society wills is at its heart the realization of democracy.
Current wills overthrow past wills. The wills of the past are wrong for today, but that does not mean they were wrong for yesterday. This is an assumption we make.
I suppose I’m using a different definition of wrong here. If we decided to kill someone for 50 cents yesterday, we might have been happy about, because we could buy ourselves a peppermint, but then, today, we get thrown in jail for the rest of our lives, and never get another peppermint. Was the one peppermint yesterday worth being the last peppermint ever?
Point being, society may not always know what its best interests are. The basis for democracy is that nobody else knows better than society does, which I agree with, I’m just saying it isn’t always going to be the right decision, even if it reflects society’s collective view.
Supreme Court rulings are overturned from time to time. Brown vs. the Board of Education (?) separate but equal was overturned. It does occur, but seldom.
I hope the recent decison regarding wire tapping is nailed by Congress as they can easily make this legal.
