User Tag List

First 1234 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 33

  1. #21
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    It's not about breaking the law, it's about the law being broken and therefore not a proper tool in a given situation.
    Laws are like, well, like science for example. They're broad and generalistic pictures. Dynamics that can never have the same degree of resolution the relevant layers of reality have.

    It's a little bit like uncertainty (or exactly the same if you know of anti de sitter spaces and holography a bit).. like a bell curve: The law is meant to work in most cases but the further away we get from the 'median and more likely case' the more likely it'll be that the law breaks down because of its too low resolution.
    (a simili would be a microscrope that cannot see anything that's under say 0.5% of the median scenario, or how you cannot see the micro moves eyes make to get a better depth perception)

    Then there's the 'complex system' bit, which to put it simply is about the butterfly effect.
    Even if laws were optimal at some Time 0, which is most certainly not the case, as time goes on new laws are added, old laws are modified as the environment evolves. Each modification, substraction and addition will create complex chain reactions. The same thing is true of DNA.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  2. #22
    ¡MI TORTA! Amethyst's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    MBTI
    ESTP
    Enneagram
    7w8 so/sx
    Socionics
    SLE Ti
    Posts
    2,182

    Default

    When it doesn't make sense, or doesn't hurt anyone else but yourself with your own consent.

  3. #23
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Basically the system cannot be perfect, it could only stay close to some optimum, based on a given set of parameters. But then since we'd be in the realm of ideology and not only efficiency: people are bound to disagree as long as we don't have some perfect models describing human behavior and society. And even then two theories could 'score' the same in terms of efficiency, and give different sets of laws. And their respective topologies would mean that some individual would rather apply set of law x over y even when y is the 'official set of laws' and applying X in system Y creates loss in its overall efficiency and so is detrimental to society as a whole.

    Also there are disparities not only just 'between individuals' in the classical way, but different rates and types of data exchange and lag effects in a given state which has a given set of laws will make it impossible for a nationally applied set of laws to be as 'optimal' as a set of laws that would be applied and tailored at higher levels of geosocial resolutions and in real time.

    So obviously the law should be broken when it becomes too inadequate. Say you send a colony to another planet, wouldn't the new conditions of life and extreme lag time with whatever source of law at your point of origin justify to create a new and independant system?
    What if say, we're talking about AI or some hypothetical uploaded human mind, and they run much faster than 'meat humans'. Wouldn't they see what we define as a 'good enough' resolution for our legal system to be inadequate.
    There's an infinity of other examples I could give.. The point is that there's no real answer, because as I say laws are structurally a 'good enough' system rather than a math like perfectly enclosed system.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  4. #24
    Permabanned
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    2,152

    Default

    Are you all familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

    People should obey just laws not only because it is in their own best interest, but because it may well be for the common good
    Hmm..interesting.
    However, I'd say that "the common good" isn't a definable concept. It's a myth. There is no "common good".
    Under those parameters, where there is a pre-defined objective "good" then yes, I could imagine yielding my own self interests for the benefit of all (and thus my own, as well) but until we find this common good how can I serve it when I don't even know what it is?

    So, imo, the scenario doesn't apply to the real world.

  5. #25
    resonance entropie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    MBTI
    entp
    Enneagram
    783
    Posts
    16,761

    Default

    in the real world all human values do not apply or make any sense. But that's the point to the question whether you want to obey a law. It's your choice if you do and hiding behind a scientifical model wont for the first time be a scapegoat then
    [URL]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEBvftJUwDw&t=0s[/URL]

  6. #26
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    Hmm..interesting.
    However, I'd say that "the common good" isn't a definable concept. It's a myth. There is no "common good".
    Under those parameters, where there is a pre-defined objective "good" then yes, I could imagine yielding my own self interests for the benefit of all (and thus my own, as well) but until we find this common good how can I serve it when I don't even know what it is?

    So, imo, the scenario doesn't apply to the real world.
    The fact that there's no perfect answer only means that it's a real world situation rather than an equation type closed system. But that doesn't discard the possibility to have highly viable sets of solutions for a given level of resolution concerning given population sizes, degrees of variance and inter/intra group dynamics
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  7. #27
    nee andante bechimo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    8,025

    Default

    There's no "should" in breaking laws and rules. It's up to the individual to decide if the law or rule aligns with their ethics and sense of morality. As well, each law or rule breaker should bear full responsibility for the consequences of breaking laws or rules.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Beefeater View Post
    By what standard do you judge the fairness or justness of a law?
    Quite simple. A law is fair when it provides a mutually satisfactory basis for cooperation. Obviously we need to assume both parties are rational.






    Are you all familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

    People should obey just laws not only because it is in their own best interest, but because it may well be for the common good.[/QUOTE]

  9. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    MBTI
    INTj
    Posts
    1,650

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mkenya View Post
    I'd break a law if I thought the outcome(s) of me breaking the law would be "better" (for me) than the (possible) consequences. That is, if the rewards justified the risks.
    This attitude would have a harmful effect on social cooperation. If the majority took this attitude, there would be no building of trust. Without trust, the society will be weak, making it vulnerable to conquest by external competitors.

  10. #30
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Metaphor View Post
    There's no "should" in breaking laws and rules. It's up to the individual to decide if the law or rule aligns with their ethics and sense of morality. As well, each law or rule breaker should bear full responsibility for the consequences of breaking laws or rules.
    We have specialists in most domains. You wouldn't trust your medical health to a popular vote. There's no reason why any individual's opinion of what 'should be/feels right' ough to have as much weight as a specialist's opinion on the matter. We live in a society, if most people want welfare money but getting that money will make it impossible for the state to give them these helps within a few years the governement shouldn't listen to what people want because it doesn't make any sense. Just like you wouldn't or at least shouldn't trust incoherent people with decisions that concern more than themselves.

    edit: Vote should be limited to people who have the right mental tools and informations to make a reasonned choice for a given topic.
    That doesn't mean it'd always be the same people voting, it means that instead of making voting such a given that peope don't even bother doing it, "we" could promote people deserving the right to vote through what is essentially a standardized test where they'd have to show that they actually bothered to study the data before giving their opinion and have a basic understanding of say for example rethorics.
    And the more 'important' the vote the more prerequisites.

    Information is available EVERYWHERE nowadays, people have no excuse to just utter the first thing that comes to mind and makes them feel self righteous.
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

Similar Threads

  1. When should someone be "committed"?
    By Wind Up Rex in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 01-28-2016, 08:19 AM
  2. How literally should the Bible be interpreted?
    By Kiddo in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 130
    Last Post: 02-02-2008, 07:32 PM
  3. How literally should the constitution be taken?
    By Nocapszy in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 46
    Last Post: 12-19-2007, 10:41 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO