the law is the law......

in regards to many situations right, now the conservative says,
“the law is the law” and must be obeyed… and yet, yet the conservative
fails to acknowledge the simple fact, the law is quite often wrong, in the moral sense…
many examples abound in the world today…
for example, many “great” events in American history were in fact, in violation of the law
and according to the conservative not to have happened…the Boston tea party, the
throwing of the tea into the Charles rives, Illegal and in violation of the LAW…
the entire revolution against England, illegal… the enter war of independence, illegal…
should we have not violated the law in that instance? I mean the “law is the law” and so
how can we justify violating the law, how can we justify breaking the law to achieve
independence? Slavery was the law of the land in the United States… “the law is the law”
and yet, we had to fight an entire civil war to end slavery in this country…
the fact is slavery was the law… how do we justify breaking the law to free an entire
race from slavery? it was the LAW…Gandhi in India, broke the laws
many number of times… he was a lawyer and he knew the laws and he knew
he was breaking the law… the law is the law and yet he did so, how did he justify
the breaking of the law? we have Jim crow laws… and we had people like
Rosa Parks break the law and we had people like Martin Luther King break the law…
but didn’t they know the “law is the law”? Within my lifetime, it was a law
in some states forbidding interracial marriages… and yet they did marry!
the law is the law… how can a black person marry a white person… it is against
the law and society will collapse without everyone obeying the law…anarchy will
unfold without obedience to the law…Jesus… Jesus broke the law… didn’t he
know the “law is the law”… how can he justify breaking the law?

just because the “law is the law” doesn’t make the law right in a moral sense…
and we have a multitude of examples that show us that the law might be the law
but it doesn’t make it right… but now how do we know when we should follow the law
or when we should break the law? Right now we have illegal Aliens in America
and the “law is the law” and they shouldn’t be here and yet, here they are… but
the “law is the law”… we must act to save America from the illegal actions of people
who are here illegally… “The law is the law” so we must deport them… send them back
to their own country because the “law is the law”…so we break up families in following
the law… we send fathers home without their family and we deprive children of their mother…
but hay, the “THE LAW IS THE LAW” and without obeying the law we have chaos and disorder
and anarchy… and yet this country was founded on completely illegal act and slavery was
ended on completely illegal acts…(a civil war is by definition an illegal act… to get a civil
war someone broke the law someplace) and Gandhi created the country of India on
a series of illegal actions… and the religion of Christanity was founded on a series
of illegal actions…as was Protestantism was founding on a series of illegal actions…
and America was founded on a series of illegal actions… but the “THE LAW IS THE LAW”
and how can we justify breaking the law and creating anarchy and chaos when clearly
the “law is the law”? the only way you can justify any of these actions which founded
very important institutions in the world is by understanding that the “law is the law”
only in regards to terms of morality… the law is the law but it must be moral and
now we have a whole new can of worms… because what is “Moral”?

can we justify slavery on moral grounds? No, but yet, here in 2017, we
have slavery around the globe…and how is this possible?
don’t they, slaveholders know “the law is the law”?
how can they justify breaking the law? don’t they know anarchy and chaos will follow
if we all don’t obey the law?

Just because a “law is the law” doesn’t make it right or worth having…
the question becomes, how do we know? upon what grounds do we have
justification for breaking the law?

we have had many, many millions of people around the world including here
in America protesting, some violently, protesting 45’s administration…
don’t they know that they are breaking the law? “the law is the law” and
they are inviting chaos and disorder into society by protesting 45…

“The law is the law” this idea suggest we need to rethink this idea of
“the law is the law” and reframe it into another idea…

Kropotkin

That’s a double-edged sword.

As soon as you say that it’s okay to break the law, you invite everyone to apply his own standard of morality. That standard may be very different from your own and the result of his lawbreaking may not be at all what you want.

Just as an example … there was a recent trial of an Islamic terrorist who planned to bomb a train. In court, he stated that the only law that he recognized is the law of God as expressed in the Koran. IOW, he was no problem in killing people and forcing an Islamic state onto the general population.

OK, let us think about what would happen have if we hadn’t broken the law…

We wouldn’t have the United States, we would still have slavery, we wouldn’t have
Protestantism, we wouldn’t have had Jesus and we wouldn’t have Christianity…

just about every major advance we have had over the last couple of thousand years
have come from someone breaking the law… The law is the law and how can these
people just come in a break the law and invite chaos and disorder and anarchy?
and yet, they have advance the cause of being human… so what is more important?
the law or the advancement of being a human being?

Kropotkin

K: the “law is the law” but whose law? gods or man? Protestantism came about by breaking the law
and Catholicism came about from breaking the law, as did the Islamic religion … so who has the higher
right, man or god?

Kropotkin

in fact, according to the bible, the first act of human beings is to break the law…
don’t eat the apple…

Kropotkin

Laws and moral rules merely discourage certain behaviors by placing artificial consequences on actions.

In fact, you can do anything that you are physically capable of, if you are prepared to take the risk and sufferer the consequences.

“Higher rights” are a man-made concept which is used to justify some particular set of rules/laws.

One side claims “higher rights” when they do something. The other side claims “higher rights” when opposing that action. Right, Iambig?

in fact… religion, philosophy and science all exist because
someone broke the law…

Kropotkin

What if Trump broke the law by banning travel from “certain” countries?

K: and therein comes the rub… upon what do we base judgement on whether
we should or shouldn’t break the law AND whose law are we prepared to break…
man’s or gods?

Kropotkin

Somebody once said, “Who the hell needs the rules when you can just make them up”, but I can’t remember who it was now.

I don’t know how much more clearly the case against the American left can be made: On Monday, the GOP is horrible because they broke rules. On Tuesday Trump is horrible because he ‘circumnavigates’ the process with executive orders. On Wednesday breaking the law is suddenly a good thing, and it’s conservatives that hide behind “The law is the law”.

It’s clear: the person who acts in this way has no respect for the law, or the rules, or any of that. They are simply invoking whatever thing will make their opposition look bad at the time. Law and order? Fine. Rebellion? Equally fine.

It’s not that the left doesn’t have a solid ideology, it’s that a principle of that ideology entails a lack of respect for honesty.

K: you do remember this is a philosophy web site, right?

Kropotkin

It’s odd that you say that when you start the thread like this:

Both sides, conservative and liberal, appeal to the law or appeal to higher morality as it suits them.

In which case, you change the law, not ignore the laws.

…but I’m still waiting for examples.

Yes, but you make it easy to forget.

I have to agree with ‘conservatives’ on undocumented immigrants. Despite being left wing and pro-immigration, if someone is in a country without the permission of the host country that is clearly a problem. They aren’t entitled to the benefits, or drawbacks, of being in a legal collective - and yet they live in it anyway. I’d prefer an amnesty and the documenting of currently undocumented migrants (perhaps with caveats like 'no criminal record, been here more than two years etc), as I am pro immigration in general. However, whatever the solution, I don’t feel simply act like undocumented immigrants aren’t an issue is sensible or workable.

The law in a liberal decracy is quite complex, frequently reviewed and updated and challenged. It isn’t a black and white affair. "“The law is the law” so we must deport them… send them back to their own country because the “law is the law” is not an accurate reflection of US immigration law as it stands now on deportations - no authority is currently legally compelled to deport all illegal immigrants.

In terms of the morality of the law, It’s a clear sign of any government that is even vaguely respectable that it has an independent judiciary able to enforce the laws of that country. This judiciary should not worry itself with the morality of the laws tit enforces. Instead it should find offenders - people who break the law - and punish them according to the laws of the country. Therefore it’s (in my opinion) an essential part of a moral society that lawbreakers are punished, even when the way they broke the might be considered ‘moral’ by some.

I say we send all humans to moon. Would raise the average of IQ of the Earth by over 50 points.