How do you know what law is right, and be obeyed?
If you know something is wrong, why obey it?
===========
Natural laws are always right: your bladder is full so you empty your bladder. Your body is tired so you rest. Your stomach growls so you put food in your stomach. If you throw something in the air it always go down because of law of gravity.
==============
Man made laws are wrong: pay your taxes, stop, keep off the grass, turn right or left only. But we have to obey them or face penalties.
the natural laws, as justly mentioned, as well as the human laws stated are all sub-components to a larger category of laws. i have typically called it the “natural laws” before but whatever you want to call it, it is the law that is at the heart of most religions. that altruistic people follow. that martyrs based their lives on. the underlying law is if it harms anyone. if it harms your own person, it can’t be a good law. if it harms another, same problem. if it is good for you, and harms another, still bad. not until it harms no one should we consider it a good law.
to put the emptying of the bladder to the test, if we are in a crowded elevator, emptying our bladder would harm everyone else plus the person that has to clean it up. yet of course, it would be natural for us to do. still harmful, still bad. do it where no one needs to clean it up (or someone cleans it but agrees to do so, aka the waste water department). then all is good.
or human laws like stay off the grass. you may not like going around the grass but it is merely an inconvenience. what about the harm to the groundskeeper trying to maintain the grass. your actions have effects. that may be that others may follow (since you should not do anything you would not expect others to do as well) and trample the entire area to death. maybe they spend countless hours regrowing a specific area. i encounter this a lot in trails through state parks. they attempt to change trail locations but if people still follow the old path then erosion eventually spreads to destroy massive amounts of land that could have easily been prevented.
I think it’s more of an order of most important to least important, like maslow’s pyramid of needs, the natural laws are simply how things behave normally, social laws are placed to protect society from harm, personal laws or moral laws are to assist in personal development and growth.
If any one of these, other than the natural laws, interfear with another than that law wrong. eg. if by a personal law you will not kill, but you are drafted than the drafting is wrong because the personal law is self contained, if on the other hand your personal volition would cause harm to others through action than your personal law is wrong because it causes the conflict.
for the most part the one that causes the conflict is mistaken, but there are allways exceptions.
So if you say natural laws are truth, then the 10 commandments are natural laws? How then can it be enforce if it were true?
Because everybody else is doing it, and despite how wrong it feels, it’s a sacrifice to god’s perfect will, thus it’s worth it… 
How do I recognize “truth�
It bites me on the ass.
But not just any ass, due to so many asses, all exposing themselves. Look for the truth which is least full of shit, the truth which is appealing, and that has wiped recently.
And when man says: “This is true.”, what else is it, other than the sensation of belief being required?
Nobody should merely say “this is trueâ€.
They should prove it by putting it into practice and succeeding using it.
So how do u assess ‘success’?
The achievement of a foreseen and desired outcome.
Ouch! Just got bitten on the ass…
There may be two approaches to this depending on which stand you take.
The first can be termed a natural law approach. This would imply that all laws must be moulded with morality as a crucial component. If this is the case and morality is generally homogenous and uniformly understood then there would be no problem in asserting or claiming that a law is unjust/immoral and hence should not be followed. In fact Hobbes and Locke claim that there is a moral duty incumbent on the people to disobey the rule/law in question.
The second approach would be based on what is termed ‘legal positivism’ whereby criteria for validity is set down by those in authority. If this criteria is followed in making laws, then there is no basis for disobeying the law whaetver be its moral/immoral/amoral content. This is in fact what explained the rise of Hitler in a world where natural law gave way to legal positivism. Are we forced to obey such laws if they are unjust? Opinions differ. Dworkin contends that they should still be followed and those in power who want to do justice must interpret law in such a way as to render it as moral as possible.
HLA Hart speaks of choosing the lesser of two evils when faced with this sort of dilemma. He takes the example of the Grudge-informer cases. In this the wives of husbands who had been away on war during WW2, as an act of revenge, ‘informed’ the authorities in power about the rebellion of their husbands. The controversy takes place after the end of the war when these wives are tried in a ‘proper’ court of justice. The question posed was whether this law by which the wives stood by was just or not and whether it must be followed. If it must be followed and obeyed, it would mean that the wives could not be punished. They would be allowed to ‘escape justice’ without punishment - clearly an unfair result. The second option would therefore be to punish these women for having informed the authorities. But can they be punished for something they did which was ‘lawful’? Hart chooses to punish them. He deems this to be lesser of the two evils.
You know I pondered this one, for quite a while I read and reread everyones posts. Everyone has valid points. But, in such a simple question the depth of it creates a vaccum of sorts. To truly answer I would have to be standing beside you eye to eye for in no way else would you or I be able to communicate the depths of the question and answers.
That made me laugh pretty hard; for a forum post.
__
Anyways this isn’t a psychology question, it’s philosophical/religous.
How do you recognize truth? The very question implies that you are capable of such a thing. That is, to spot out a type of ultimate…thingy, amongst the external world. The biological functions behind your brain doing it don’t really matter because they beg the question.
Though… in all fairness, we may be able to reverse-engineer the biological functions back to find an answer. Listen to the people to claim to have ‘seen the truth’. Read between the lines and that stuff is…well, the truth.
Dan,
You’ve ask about the TRUTH. Are you sure that there is any such thing? How did you decide that the truth was a “thing” outside of you?
Kris,
Please send picture. I wanna see how you do this.
Your caffeine quotient must be a little low…
kris
If you have happen to want to post a picture of eye to eye post, you are free to do so, because the future posts are reserve specially for you always.
Hmm eye to eye heh, either it will make one laugh or it will make one eat the other person’s mouth.
tentative
truth, if there is no such thing, all the decisions that were made in court is a lie. Truth, if there is no such thing, we do not need a government.
Truth, if there is no such thing, you and I would not be having a conversation.
DADA 
Tent, Eh hem , If two people are standing together they are infact beside each other. Is not a front and a back considered a side?
Now if I had said “to stand aside you”, that would mean shoulder to shoulder Besides that, we have this remarkable ability to be able to turn our heads. So Pick nits all you want to, I used the correct term. 
Gobbo my dear man, everyone has valid points unless you choose not to see their perspective. A valid point can be as simple a word or as complicated as a book. You can’t dismiss the valid because the majority is invalid. You lose information that way.
Dan, if I could I would and for you alone will I strive to find that. 
Truth is not something that mere words can accomodate. If one seeks truth, you must get all dimensions, perspectives, feelings, emotions, visual sound, smell and any data possible. Anything less, is less than the truth.
The title of this thread asks “how do you recognize truth”.
The answer is: “with your heart”.
The initial post then digresses a bit.