I said it before...drug users...

[MA-Caver]

Are you speaking of the morality (or lack thereof) of obeying the law, or the morality (or lack thereof) of "using drugs?"

Better question... WHOSE morals are we supposed to be teaching? God's? Allah? Buddah? Shiva? Atheists (yes I acknowledge that they have morals too :uhyeah: )?
What's moral to me might be immoral to you and vice-versa.
Take a moment think that one over.

 

[oftheherd1]

Are you speaking of the morality (or lack thereof) of obeying the law, or the morality (or lack thereof) of "using drugs?"

Well, since banned drug use is illegal, I guess I can easily say both. And for the same reason, I am not sure what your question is. If you are aksing about all law, or just those pertaining to using certain drugs, to me there is still no problem. It is moral to obey the law, including those laws against illegal drug use. It is also moral to obey the law against murder, theft, forgery, purjury, etc.

 

[oftheherd1]

Better question... WHOSE morals are we supposed to be teaching? God's? Allah? Buddah? Shiva? Atheists (yes I acknowledge that they have morals too :uhyeah: )?
What's moral to me might be immoral to you and vice-versa.
Take a moment think that one over.

I don't know if it is a better question. It is easily answered.

I live in the USA. I consider it moral to obey the laws of the nation, as well as those of my state. I am also a Christian as I mentioned, so I consider it moral to obey the laws of God.

Since in the USA we have a fair amount of religious freedom, those of other religions are free to disagree with the morals of my religion. But in this country we all are required to obey the civil law.

 

[elder999]

Well, since banned drug use is illegal, I guess I can easily say both. And for the same reason, I am not sure what your question is. If you are aksing about all law, or just those pertaining to using certain drugs, to me there is still no problem. It is moral to obey the law, including those laws against illegal drug use. It is also moral to obey the law against murder, theft, forgery, purjury, etc.

There's a difference between moral and legal. It was moral for many to aid slaves from escaping the South prior to and during the Civil War, but it was also mostly illegal, and was thought by some to be immoral. Morality is a construct, and relative. Laws are generally more concrete, absolute, and have no regard for "morality" one way or the other. It is legal to abort a human fetus, though many would argue that it's immoral. It might be legal and moral for some to give truthful testimony in court that sends a friend or close relative to jail on a minor offense, but immoral to many others who believe that you shouldn't rat out your friends. It would be immoral to allow your children to starve to death, but illegal to steal food to feed them.

I'd posit that it is clearly not always moral for everyone to obey the law-that, in fact, obeying some laws under certain circumstances might pretty clearly be immoral.

I'd also have to question which morals we're supposed to be teaching our children, and to what end? And I have to point out that the teaching of morals doesn't necessarily ingrain them, or keep those within whom they might otherwise be ingrained from violating them.I certainly don't think that there are many 9 year olds looking forward to the day when they can immorally violate the drug laws and become hopeless junkies, in spite of whatever morality they have been taught....:lfao:

 

[oftheherd1]

There's a difference between moral and legal. It was moral for many to aid slaves from escaping the South prior to and during the Civil War, but it was also mostly illegal, and was thought by some to be immoral. Morality is a construct, and relative. Laws are generally more concrete, absolute, and have no regard for "morality" one way or the other. It is legal to abort a human fetus, though many would argue that it's immoral. It might be legal and moral for some to give truthful testimony in court that sends a friend or close relative to jail on a minor offense, but immoral to many others who believe that you shouldn't rat out your friends. It would be immoral to allow your children to starve to death, but illegal to steal food to feed them.

I'd posit that it is clearly not always moral for everyone to obey the law-that, in fact, obeying some laws under certain circumstances might pretty clearly be immoral.

I'd also have to question which morals we're supposed to be teaching our children, and to what end? And I have to point out that the teaching of morals doesn't necessarily ingrain them, or keep those within whom they might otherwise be ingrained from violating them.I certainly don't think that there are many 9 year olds looking forward to the day when they can immorally violate the drug laws and become hopeless junkies, in spite of whatever morality they have been taught....:lfao:

Well sir, that's a lot of points you are commenting on. I would like to answer them since you have asked. But first I think I need to know your definition of legal, and your definition of moral. You assert points that may be confusing. Especially where morals and law may appear not agree, yet state that 9 year olds might immorally violate drug laws.

 

[hongkongfooey]

OK. Drug users have bad morals and are acting as accomplices in Mexico's drug war. Now what can you do about it? That is, other than jumping up and down and pointing fingers at drug users?

 

[elder999]

Especially where morals and law may appear not agree, yet state that 9 year olds might immorally violate drug laws.

No confusion, other than that's not what I said.

What I said, basically, is that no 9 year old aspires to become a junkie when they get older. 9 being about the age when, for better or worse, most of our moral compasses are developed-though perhaps not fully developed, it's when most of us clearly have been programmed to know "right" from "wrong."

 

[oftheherd1]

No confusion, other than that's not what I said.

What I said, basically, is that no 9 year old aspires to become a junkie when they get older. 9 being about the age when, for better or worse, most of our moral compasses are developed-though perhaps not fully developed, it's when most of us clearly have been programmed to know "right" from "wrong."

Ah, well there is then some misunderstanding on my part. But the examples you gave indicate your belief that laws and morals can contradict each other, and they cannot both be reconciled. As to 9 year olds, it was your choice of words, immorally violate law, that got me to thinking you were trying to say something else. So, for any misunderstanding I had, I am sorry. Do you then think that morals and laws that seem to, or actually do contradict each other, can in fact be reconciled?

 

[Steve]

Ah, well there is then some misunderstanding on my part. But the examples you gave indicate your belief that laws and morals can contradict each other, and they cannot both be reconciled. As to 9 year olds, it was your choice of words, immorally violate law, that got me to thinking you were trying to say something else. So, for any misunderstanding I had, I am sorry. Do you then think that morals and laws that seem to, or actually do contradict each other, can in fact be reconciled?

Only by amending or repealing the law. Civil disobedience, by Thoreau, is all about this very subject. If you haven't read it, you might really enjoy it. Very, very interesting and thought provoking read on the subject of what can (or in the author's opinion, MUST) be done when there is a disconnect between what we believe to be Just or Right and what is Lawful.

 

[oftheherd1]

Only by amending or repealing the law. Civil disobedience, by Thoreau, is all about this very subject. If you haven't read it, you might really enjoy it. Very, very interesting and thought provoking read on the subject of what can (or in the author's opinion, MUST) be done when there is a disconnect between what we believe to be Just or Right and what is Lawful.

My understanding from a quick google search, is that Thoreau advocated disobeying any unjust law. Also, that a man must expect to go to jail, in fact desire to go to jail. That may be an over simplificaion.

There are a couple of problems I see. First, who gets to determine what basis on which to determine if a law is unjust? Sounds like something leading to anarchy. Part of a democracy is that the majority rules. There will be majorities on a large variety of subjects, so very likely, a person who is not part of the majority on one issue, may well be on others. If there is not to be anarchy, there must be submission to the majorities rule until a convincing arguement can be made against a law, that a sufficient number of citizens will form a new majority against that law.

Second, how many times did Thoreau go to jail for his beliefs? Depending on the law, how long will a person be in jail? While in jail, how does a person protest and attempt to form new majorities? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, was willing to go to jail, but his crimes didn't usually require long sentances, and anyway, he usually got out on bail pretty quickly. He also had the advantage by that time of the sympathy of a large portion of the population, as well as a large 'machine' to keep his plight in front of sympathetic and unsympathetic parts of the populace.

But I would still be curious how Elder999 defines moral and law, and if he does or does not believe they can be reconciled. Apparently you do not believe they can ever co-exist. Is that correct?

 

[Steve]

My understanding from a quick google search, is that Thoreau advocated disobeying any unjust law. Also, that a man must expect to go to jail, in fact desire to go to jail. That may be an over simplificaion.

There are a couple of problems I see. First, who gets to determine what basis on which to determine if a law is unjust? Sounds like something leading to anarchy. Part of a democracy is that the majority rules. There will be majorities on a large variety of subjects, so very likely, a person who is not part of the majority on one issue, may well be on others. If there is not to be anarchy, there must be submission to the majorities rule until a convincing arguement can be made against a law, that a sufficient number of citizens will form a new majority against that law.

Second, how many times did Thoreau go to jail for his beliefs? Depending on the law, how long will a person be in jail? While in jail, how does a person protest and attempt to form new majorities? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr, was willing to go to jail, but his crimes didn't usually require long sentances, and anyway, he usually got out on bail pretty quickly. He also had the advantage by that time of the sympathy of a large portion of the population, as well as a large 'machine' to keep his plight in front of sympathetic and unsympathetic parts of the populace.

But I would still be curious how Elder999 defines moral and law, and if he does or does not believe they can be reconciled. Apparently you do not believe they can ever co-exist. Is that correct?

It doesn't sound like you've read the book. Civil Disobience is a writing that has profoundly influenced some of the most effective revolutionaries in our modern history. Ghandi was influenced by this writing, and MLK Jr. was influenced by them both (Ghandi and Thoreau).

Honestly, it sounds like you're dismissing what I believe is an integral part of the discussion. A google search doesn't cut it. The piece is short and it's entirely available online. Check it out. Also, check out how it has influenced people like Ghandi, MLK Jr.

What I believe is that there is a difference between something being "lawful" and something being "ethical." One is political. The other is not. Can they co-exist? Of course. But, when Hitler decided that it was lawful to imprison jews, gypsies and homosexuals (among others) in camps and kill them, it was then and remains now very, very immoral. By anyone's standard.

Thoreau would argue that, knowing fundamentally that this was immoral, it was the obligation of the citizen to refuse to comply with the laws requiring the internment and subsequent execution of these innocents. And that they should expect to be held accountable for their actions.

Have you ever heard of the My Lai Massacre that occurred in Vietnam? It was a dark day for our military. When asked, many soldiers claimed they were "just following orders." It's remains a lesson in the difference between lawful and moral. And it's the actions of Hugh Thompson Jr that stand out, because he was willing to defy direct orders and do what he believed was both unlawful, but just and moral.

 

[Sukerkin]

[yt]hkFa2lSNAGc[/yt]

If you can watch this interview and not feel this mans obvious pain, even so many years on from that dreadful day, you are not a man/woman I want to know. Seeing such a brave man working so hard to hold back the tears as the memories were brought back to him brought tears of my own for his sake.

EDIT: I realise this is not utterly on-topic but I was strongly moved on finding this, after a search prompted by Steve's words above, and thought it would do no harm to share.

 

[elder999]

But I would still be curious how Elder999 defines moral and law, and if he does or does not believe they can be reconciled. Apparently you do not believe they can ever co-exist. Is that correct?

They can sometimes be reconciled, and often one is based on the other, but they are two completely independent things.

 

[Buka]

Best thread to stay out of I've yet seen.

 

[oftheherd1]

[yt]hkFa2lSNAGc[/yt]

If you can watch this interview and not feel this mans obvious pain, even so many years on from that dreadful day, you are not a man/woman I want to know. Seeing such a brave man working so hard to hold back the tears as the memories were brought back to him brought tears of my own for his sake.

EDIT: I realise this is not utterly on-topic but I was strongly moved on finding this, after a search prompted by Steve's words above, and thought it would do no harm to share.

I had not seen this before. Very poignant. Thanks for posting that.

 

[frank raud]

OK. Drug users have bad morals and are acting as accomplices in Mexico's drug war. Now what can you do about it? That is, other than jumping up and down and pointing fingers at drug users?

Insist that they support local American producers of illegal chemicals and buy hydroponically grown marijuana to reduce the levels of violence associated with drug trafficking? Or does the violence inflicted by American based drug dealers not qualify as terrorism?

 

[Makalakumu]

Buy American! Lol!

Sent from my Eris using Tapatalk

 

[oftheherd1]

It doesn't sound like you've read the book. Civil Disobience is a writing that has profoundly influenced some of the most effective revolutionaries in our modern history. Ghandi was influenced by this writing, and MLK Jr. was influenced by them both (Ghandi and Thoreau).

No sir, I have not. I said that in my answer.

Honestly, it sounds like you're dismissing what I believe is an integral part of the discussion. A google search doesn't cut it. The piece is short and it's entirely available online. Check it out. Also, check out how it has influenced people like Ghandi, MLK Jr.

It was not my intent to dismiss you input. Your reply was thoughtful and thought proving. I enjoyed reading it.

What I believe is that there is a difference between something being "lawful" and something being "ethical." One is political. The other is not. Can they co-exist? Of course. But, when Hitler decided that it was lawful to imprison jews, gypsies and homosexuals (among others) in camps and kill them, it was then and remains now very, very immoral. By anyone's standard.

That is one definition of law and morals. I think laws can be religions, as in the Ten Commandments, which underpin a lot of our modern law. As to Hitler, I am not aware that even Hitler's Germany made it law (passed by a legislative body, which they had) to murder or even enslave people. I think he made edicts and had the power to pick people for civilian and military positions that would follow his edicts. If somebody knows I am wrong, please correct me. And I am in no way trying to justify or minimize what Hitler did or ordered be done. It was a terrible thing.

Thoreau would argue that, knowing fundamentally that this was immoral, it was the obligation of the citizen to refuse to comply with the laws requiring the internment and subsequent execution of these innocents. And that they should expect to be held accountable for their actions.

I can see that as a way to protest a law you consider unjust. It worked for Martin Luther King, Jr, and Ghandi. They did have a large portion of the populace behind them, and I am sure that helped. Values were changing in many parts of both country's citizenship, if not so much in the government. Remember that Eisenhower was the president that disallowed Arkansas' attempt to keep a college segregated. The Supreme Court had interpreted against segregation before that. The whole country didn't change overnight, but it was moving. And some during that time were willing to be incarcerated. But it was based on the Supreme Court's decision that the law of the nation changed, and came in line with what more and more of the citizenship was deciding was moral.

Have you ever heard of the My Lai Massacre that occurred in Vietnam? It was a dark day for our military. When asked, many soldiers claimed they were "just following orders." It's remains a lesson in the difference between lawful and moral. And it's the actions of Hugh Thompson Jr that stand out, because he was willing to defy direct orders and do what he believed was both unlawful, but just and moral.

Yes I have heard of My Lai. There was no excuse for what happened there. I must tell you however, that is not an example of the difference between lawful and moral. Military personnel have been taught for at least the last 50 years that I am aware of, that they not only can disobey an order if it is illegal, but have a duty to do so. An order to commit murder is illegal. Granted a soldier who disobeys an order and claims that as his defense at a Court-Martial, will have the burden of proof on him, that it was indeed an illegal order. But the point is, if it is an illegal order to commit a crime, it must be disobeyed, or the service member becomes complicit in the crime.

As to Mr. Hugh Thompson Jr, his was an act of moral imperative and bravery. His crew must be saluted as well. They must have had much trepidation. They would have had to worry about being shot themselves, or having to shoot at US soldiers. Not a choice most of us would want to be required to make.

I thought I had posted something like the above before, but I must have inadvertently backed out of the thread before posting when I had to leave the house quickly.

 

[hongkongfooey]

Insist that they support local American producers of illegal chemicals and buy hydroponically grown marijuana to reduce the levels of violence associated with drug trafficking? Or does the violence inflicted by American based drug dealers not qualify as terrorism?

Look for the union label.

 

[Master Dan]

Drug enforcement law enforcement is a for profit business and it needs to stop legalize all drugs and no more drug cartells tax it spend on treatment but for the poor guy in mexico crying about his family and dojang get the hell out you cannot protect your famiily as long as we supply billions in revenue plus the weopons and coruption on both sides nothing will stop. I know Columbia seems to have transended to much more positive things but with the global economic issues money always wins and poor people loose relocate you cannot justify any possesions or income if you loose family members including yourself who must raise your family