When Should a Law be Broken?

[EcK]

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.

 

[Amethyst]

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

 

[EcK]

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.

 

[xisnotx]

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.

 

[entropie]

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

 

[EcK]

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

 

[rav3n]

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.

 

[Not_Me]

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]

 

[Not_Me]

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.

 

[EcK]

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.

 

[EcK]

If scientific theories pertaining to the natural world can be classified according to how they correlate with the data, there's no reason why social reality should be an exception and ideologies for some strange reason would be excused from making sense. Communism for example is simply incompatible with human nature, with will to power and our evolutionary drive to not only cooperate for the sake of the genepool but also compete in order to promote individual benefits relative to the rest of the genepool and therefore promote one's gene while using the added survival value of being a social animal.

A quadrillion flies eat shit, that doesn't make it the right breakfast of champions for Mickey and Timmy for the same reasons that religious claims are extremely unlikely to be closer to a 1:1 model of the universe's workings than say, the Standard Model (particle physics). It's neither elegant nor necessary and incoherent with the data.

The sacro saint 'everybody's opinion is equal' is just as much fairy tale and bullshit people don't even truly believe themselves as the it-is-a-sacred-fact-i'll-cut-you-if-you-deny-it interpretation of 'everybody's equal'

SO people should have a legal obligation to understand themselves and their actions better than through vague vibes before they should start questioning the system. Otherwise the breaking of the law is more likely than not to have as much 'rotten' a foundation as the law it wants to superseed.

And now more of the same in pictures!

 

[xisnotx]

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

I'm not sure I understand your point, but if I do..
Your use of the word "resolution" implies "problem". You see..to me there are very few "problems" in the world..or at least objective absolute problems. There are situations that I personally don't like and there are situations that most people personally don't like, but this doesn't make them absolute problems, just collective individual problems. Does that make sense? There are no objective problems because there is no objective goal that humans have. So while I think I understand your sentiment...that sometimes humans need to work together to achieve a common goal..my standpoint is that not all people agree on this common goal nor should they be forced to. And personally, when my goals deviate from the "common goal", unless there are factors that influence me to behave otherwise (laws, and social repercussions mostly) I don't hesitate to follow my own personal goals. If that makes me selfish then so be it.

Basically, I look after myself. I have no moral obligation to look after you. I might have a personal want to look after you, but it is not like the purpose of my life has to be to serve you. It isn't a moral obligation.
Here's an interesting question. If you were on an island with one other person, and there was only food on this island for one person..what would happen? There are only a couple options. 1) You both die 2)One of you lives. Personally, my want to live is more important to me than his want to live. I'm doing what I can to ensure I live. If he doesn't do the same..too bad for him I guess. If he does...well, let the best man win.

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.

I don't care. I have no moral obligation to keep society strong. Obviously, it's to my benefit if my society is strong..but it's to MY benefit. My motivations aren't external ...they are internal. I don't have a moral obligation but a "personal" obligation. So while it usually works out in the end, I don't buy into the whole "Let's all work together because Jesus wants us to/because that is what we are supposed to do" ideology. To me it's more like "Let's all work together because our goals happen to align..if they stop aligning, I'm gone."

 

[Not_Me]

Basically, I look after myself. I have no moral obligation to look after you. I might have a personal want to look after you, but it is not like the purpose of my life has to be to serve you. It isn't a moral obligation.

I agree. But it is in your best interest to look after me because I will return the favor when you are in need. Cooperation results in greater achievements.

I don't buy into the whole "Let's all work together because Jesus wants us to/because that is what we are supposed to do" ideology. To me it's more like "Let's all work together because our goals happen to align..if they stop aligning, I'm gone."

Yes, but how well can you cooperate if you did not trust your partners to hold their end of the deal? The motivation for ethical behavior is rational self interest, not altruism.