I’m a little torn on this one. I don’t really believe in the inherent immorality of any act, or the principle of morality itself. I prefer ethical concepts like the social contract and the categorical imperative, and the majority of laws are consistent with these – or at least not contravened by them. I also favor an orderly and civil society, so one might say that I obey most laws on principle. However, I have to admit that there are many laws that I would break often and gleefully if I knew I wouldn’t be punished, and that includes some that are clearly demanded by my principles.
Whatever seems best at the time.
Good laws should be obeyed, always and everywhere, simply because they are good, and for no other reason.
Normal laws should be obeyed, unless it’s an emergency, simply because they are laws, and for no other reason.
Evil laws should be disobeyed, always and everywhere, simply because they are evil, and for no other reason.
So, if you make a table with the three types of laws and the two types of situations, the law is only relevant for one of the six possibilities.
Speak for yourself.
Road laws are one set of laws I always obey, on principle (because if everyone obeyed them, we’d be better off). I drive exactly like the driver’s ed manual tells you to.
But some laws I obey because the consequences are too great for the payoff, rather than because I think they’re good laws - drug laws, for instance, or the Saudi censorship ones.
So Mixed for me, Skald.
Having a rule of law is a good thing in and of itself, and if no one followed the law anarchy results. I see that as a bad outcome, so some laws I follow because of the overall principle of law. Some examples would be murder, property law, and laws against inciting a riot.
Some laws I obey because I really don’t want to deal with the consequences that come with breaking them, even if I have no personal qualms about people who do - some drug laws, for instance.
Still other laws I break willingly on a daily basis - speeding, for instance. If I get caught, I pay the fine. It doesn’t modify my behaviour, though.
It’s not as simple as pure pragmatism or pure principle. I mostly do what I most want to do in a given situation, and pragmatism and principle are each just a small feature in that grand equation.
I’m not not killing people because it’s pragmatic or principled, I’m mostly not killing people because I have no desire to kill people. If the desire comes up (which it did, all of once), then pragmatism and principle both begin to feature. But so do other things, like “there are children around” and “he’s quite a lot bigger than I am”, and those are just the ones I am conscious of - so in the end, it’s just back to that I actually don’t want to kill at all.
I think, perhaps, what it boils down to for me, is that the question assumes far too much free will for my liking.
Rhymer Enterprises provides for me broad discretion when it comes to moral choices.
but for quite pragmatic reasons.
An orderly society is the reason I can work a desk job in an air-conditioned office, rather than spending every waking moment hunting and gathering food, and guarding my stuff against rival tribes.
Killers and thieves make enemies. Enemies shorten one’s life expectancy. It is in one’s interest to refrain from killing and stealing.
Mixture of pragmatism and principle for the laws I follow. Conscientious objector in The War on Drugs.
I’d say almost entirely pragmatism.
When laws align with my principles, I’m following my principles, not the law. The fact that murder is illegal has nothing to do with my decision not to murder people.
Where law doesn’t align with my principles, I’ll follow out of a desire not to run afoul of the law. I don’t blow through stop lights at night when no one’s around because there just might be a cop hiding there waiting to ticket me. I don’t have any objections to the action on principle. When it comes to something like speeding, as long as it’s relatively safe, I have no objection on principle, and assume I can get away with it within a certain margin. So 5-10 over it is, depending on the road and conditions. Known speed trap? Needle firmly on the speed limit.
I suppose that there is a hint of the underlying principle that following the rule of law is necessary for a civil society, but it’s not forefront in my brain.