a question imposed by my philosophy of law class for your observation, because I love philosophy!
Why should we obey the law? When should we not obey the law?
Certainity if we assume the higher authority is natural laws, moral obligation, the rule of law imposed by civil societies would be ignorable.
Since, we are cowards we ought to obey the law, as long as we don’t caught.
Religiously, that is, from a Christian perspective, we should obey the law because God has ordained the government to reward those who do good and punish the evildoers. Christians are not to obey the law only when adhering to the law would violate a higher law imposed by God himself; for instance, a law which would require one to convert to Islam or any other religion would be sinful.
There are no such things as natural laws as they pertain to rule of law. Naturally, there are only prescriptions of the way things should be; for example, a mother should do her best to raise her offspring to maturity or self-reliance and sustainability. However, this is obviously not always the case. As a result, one can conclude without hesitation that there are no natural laws since humans have a free will that is capable of violating Nature’s prescriptions.
As a matter of practicality, obeying the law is not a luxury most can afford to do without. We should obey the law on most occasions simply because it benefits us to do so. Disobedience of the law will incur hurt and punishment. We can therefore conclude that obedience to the law is nearly always beneficial, and that, with few exceptions.
Indeed, this was a major concern of Nietzsche.
But in regards to morality, not in regards to political
laws, but as I see it, there is no real difference between
the two.
If we understand that god is not the arbiter of morality,
then what do we base our moral actions on?
You could replace the word 'Morality" and “Morals”
in the above sentence, with “laws” and “legal” and
it doesn’t change the sentence.
Upon what basis do we obey the law?
I would say self interest. We each give up a little, to gain more.
We give up a little, stopping at a stop sign and gain a lot, by
not creating anarchism. Every man for himself as advocated
by IMP, does not and cannot create a viable society in which one
can reach higher goals. When survival is the only goal,
we are at the level of animals. When the goal is art,
science, freedom, love, we are at a higher, more human level.
Think maslow’s pyramid.
Obeying laws allows us to try to reach the higher
levels of the pyramid. It is self interest that makes
us obey laws.
Kropotkin
I totally agree with you that we should obey laws, because it plays the advantage for us.
However, people don’t obey the laws, nor do they love the laws. They only fear the laws.
I’d say that self-interest plays less of a part. My thinking is that harming someone else unecessarily comes into play more heavily–unless one is keen on saying that “not harming someone else is in my self interest”.
Anyway, the way I’d look at it is if I come to a stop sign I stop because while I may personally want to blow through it, my actions could harm someone else.
However, if I don’t wear my seat belt, for example, I fail to see how that could harm someone else–I mean, I suppose my body COULD fly out of the car and mess up someone’s paint job, but that seems like a law designed more to protect me from me.
Hence, I’d contend we follow a law when our actions could harm someone else. Those laws designed to protect us from ourselves, well, that’s frankly my choice.
technically jesus was an anarchist
what makes a law a law. the letters and you’re willingness to accept and abide and you’re respect and adhiration to thouse rules.
the only thing that makes a law a law is enforcement- otherwise it is a suggestion.
-Imp
As Imp suggests, laws require enforcement, but ultimately laws require the acquiessence of those governed - unless those laws are not laws made, but dictates established by raw power.
Morality is relative, laws are contradictory because, say, using an example like the American society:
The larger the group of people bitching and whining to achieve enforced protection by governing bodies, the greater the degree of moronic stupidity of the “laws”; from being based upon popular concensus, not actual justice.
Laws don’t work because humanity is basal and overwhelmingly stupid. Any law which suits the wants of the criminal, against the needs of the larger group, should be abolished … or at least put on public display on Jerry Springer, so we can laugh at our own stupidity for allowing it, and impotently doing nothing to rectify the error.
Geez, Mas. Nice to see such a positive outlook on life. We should try to come back as something other than human - or something that humans won’t mess with. 
tentative … please show me my error. Where is what I said wrong?
The wealthy control the governing bodies. The media controls the law via public opinion. All else is just illusion. Illusion means lack of logical cognitive understanding of the scenario as it is, which would at least imply stupidity or mongoloidism.
Personally, I would prefer no “return trips”.
Mas,
You aren’t wrong, but leave a little sunshine somewhere…
No return trip? I wanna come back as a whale. (explanation in PM)
People aren’t born with the ability to keep society moving, they have to be taught. Laws, when enforced, put people in the habit of behaving acceptably. The laws of a society mirror its values, so if you you don’t obey laws the society will turn against you. It is beneficial to obey laws, because they help to coerce a society to take shape.
=D>
agree
with IMP.
Nah.
Try to make breathing illegal, then see how the whole enforcement angle plays out.
That’s kind of the point there isn’t it?
If you cannot enforce a law, it is not a law…
Can you enforce a law that makes it illegal to breathe?
No. Therefore, by the rules above, it is not really a law.
Can you enforce a law that prohibits some breathing (e.g. cig smoke, pot, spray paint, etc)?
Sure you can. Thus, by the rules above it is a law.
-Thirst
Nah. Enforcement is predicated on the law’s creation, which is to say, how can you enforce a law that has not been decreed a law first? You could say well I just made it a law… but what you are enforcing isnt law, rather you merely enforce what is your whim. But lets pretend Imp is the Ubermensch and he makes his own laws and enforces them as he sees fit. So,if said law was made tomorrow, and it could not be enforced, it would still be a law, just one that couldn’t be enforced.
Imagine, even further, that everyone gave their consent to outlaw breathing, that said decree was universally accepted… it would be the law of the land, and yet, if you hold your breath long enough you would just pass out and start breathing again anyway.
What really makes a law LAW is a combination of things, they should not be arbitrary, they must conform with the nature of those to whom said laws apply, they must be made with the consent of the goverened, and so on. Otherwise what you get is empty slogans or, even worse, injustice masquerading as law.
I think all laws are made on a whim, even if it is at the State’s whim (which can take decades).
-Thirst
-Imp
Laws are only enforceable with societal belief; belief that the law serves a common good for the mass of morons, belief that the law meets moral standards of the morons, and belief that the governing body has the capability to achieve enforcement, by morons.
It’s redundantly moronic.