I see a difference. McVeigh didn’t, and as stated above, he had an obligation to break the unjust laws he was morally opposed to.
Do you begin to see why letting people break laws based on their personal moral compass is a bad idea?
That’s not quite fair. Simply because he refuses to do so is not proof that he is incapable of doing so.
Christ, even my dogs have an innate sense of justice. Everyone gets the same affection/doggie treats, or else there’s (justifiably) hell to pay.
Everyone who isn’t fundamentally broken has that innate morality. If you’re broken, then the rest of us seem like the aliens, evidently.
If there were such a thing as an innate sense of justice, there would be no need for law or government, because people would not do things to each other that necessitated the evolution of those concepts.
Assuming, of course, that laws, courts etc. were created for the purpose of dispensing morally correct justice rather than keeping the powerless in their place.
Remember, kids, if you happen to slow speeding car down slightly when you j-walk to post a request letter to your town councillor about the speeding problem, YOU ARE A TERRORIST!
There are a multitude of studies demonstrating concepts of fairness and justice exist in non-human primates. Here is a summary article: Justice- and fairness-related behaviors in nonhuman primates - PMC
We need laws because society is more complex than our innate sense of justice can accommodate (complex economic ramifications for certain actions for example), because some people do not have as well developed sense of justice and will act out, and because competing impulses of selfishness/us vs them attitudes/impulsiveness can counter innate sense of justice.
So, you are wrong. Most people can exist in the necessary shades of gray to understand that sometimes protesting laws is just and sometimes it is not, to understand that not all acts against authority are morally equivalent and that authority does not always have our best interests in mind. Where people differ is deciding where to draw the lines and in discussing that is where healthy debate can be found.
It is you who are the outlier who cannot see such things.
No, that does not follow. There is research by Frans de Waal and others that demonstrates that there is indeed this innate primtive morality.
The reason we need laws and governments is twofold: 1) even basically decent people disagree over the details and/or make mistakes of judgment, and 2) those basically decent people need protection from the few deviants who do not have this sense (we call them sociopaths). Informal morality sufficed for our hunter-gatherer ancestors, but once we started farming and living in cities with strangers, laws became necessary.
edit: ninja’d by ITD
Hey, you great big broken morass of a person, the people marching in the streets are not protesting laws against marching in the streets, and McVeigh wasn’t protesting laws against blowing up buildings. You’re seriously malfunctioning.
If McVeigh wanted to protest against the US government by marching in the streets, that would be fine. Nobody is arguing that people ought to break laws based on their own moral compass. It’s just that most everyone apart from freak shows like yourself are able to differentiate between laws against blocking traffic and laws against blowing up hundreds of men, women and children.
You, on the other hand, are only able to discern between two categories: legal and illegal. For you, things that are illegal can be made okay if one gets authorization via permit to do them. Other people who are not broken evaluate these things on a different basis.
And that is why the law must be respected and obeyed. When you declare that it’s good or noble to break an unjust law, then you open the door for the sort of people that you seem to think I am to break whatever laws they think shouldn’t apply to them, and down that path lies anarchy.
This would be more true if everyone was like you. Fortunately, most people are not like you.
No one is arguing that laws should not be obeyed or disregarded willy-nilly.
We’re talking about specific circumstances when is not appropriate to do in order to serve a higher moral purpose. It may be the path to anarchy, but the path isn’t short. It’s a long fricking path. So far we’ve managed to refuse to comply with unjust laws with out anarchy occurring. Those times people we’ve managed as society to shut it down pretty effectively. You just don’t get it.
Ahem.
You were saying?
If you get to claim a “higher moral purpose” as justification for breaking the law, then so do sociopaths, “broken people”, and those with a “warped” or “missing” sense of justice. You just don’t get it.
I cited instances during the Civil Rights movement in which traffic was disrupted. There was no discussion of demands relating to these disruptions. You said they were still terrorists.
I didn’t. You’re just wrong once again.
No one gets Smapti-world except for Smapti. Seriously – you’re the only person I’ve ever encountered, in real life or online, who would not free slaves given the opportunity. Everyone but you says that freeing slaves is the right thing to do.
When the choices are “the whole world is mad” or “something might be wrong with the way I think”… which do you think is more logical? Not that this will be particularly informative, considering how screwed up your sense of logic is.
Sure you did. I’m sure the complete absence of any links to those statements is just a coincidence.
Here you go, liar:
Ah, well. You said that that’s what I believe, so it must be true. Shame on me for trusting my lying brain instead of believing you when you told me what my beliefs are.
I’ve answered that. Society as whole gets to decide and has done a good job so far distinguishing between the immoral actions (driving a truck full of explosives) and the moral ones (marches on Washington, protests at white only establishments).
I get it just fine. I see a society that has progressed in many areas with social action as the impetus. I see society being able to distinguish between good protest and bad protest. We are not in danger of a slippery slope toward anarchy. It’s those pesky shades of grey that most people can live in that you seem to have a huge amount of problems with. The problem is not me, or even society as a whole. It’s individuals like you. There is more danger in knee-jerk obedience than there ever will be in civil disobedience, even if sometimes the bad guys take action too. On balance, the good fight wins.