From: frankt@cwi.nl (Frank Teusink)
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg,soc.history
Subject: Re: AR Prisoners in need of your written support
Date: 5 Nov 92 14:12:50 GMT
Followup-To: rec.food.veg

loc@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM (Leigh Clayton) writes:
> - When legality and morality conflict, cowards use "legality" to
> - justify their obedience to totalitarianism.

> The problem with this argument is that it can be used to justify almost
>anything. If I disapprove of the way you dress your children, I can shoot them
>....

That's true. Of course, I then can punish you (or let the state do it for me).
I think that the point is, that "it's the law" or "it's legal" can never be a
moral justification. The big problem is, that people differ in what the think
is moraly right or wrong. Even the above statement ("lawless" is not
neccesarily equivalent with "moralless" (sp?)) is a personal statement. 

> At some level you're correct, certainly. No thoughtful atheist will submit
>absolutely to any given authority or moral code. But a person who is willing to
>risk killing an uninvolved human ...
>...at the best sadly deceived and at worst dangerously sociopathic; more to
>the point most people in our culture will agree with me.

I agree. But:
I think the law is a set of rules most of the people agree on most of the 
time. And of course, if you want others to obey the law even in situations
in which it is not direcly in their interest to do so, you yourself should
obey the law in such situations. But to me, the law is not absolute. There
could be situations in which I would choose not to obey the law. And there
are situations in which I can understand that other people don't obey the
law. 

> The bottom line is that any society (any group of people) needs rules by which
>to judge behaviour among themselves. The laws are, certainly, not the only
>rules we live by but someone who commits arson in the cause of animal rights is
>well outside the rules of acceptable conduct by almost everyone's standards,
>and can only expect to suffer as a result.

I agree with you. For me, in soch a case there are two reasons for 
persecuting such a person (arsonist): it's against the law, so he/she
should be persecuted, and I think the means is wrong though the cause
might be right. There can also be cases in which I personally can 
understand (but not neccesarily agree with!) the reason for commiting
some crime (for instance, killing the murderer of your child), but still
think it is neccesary to persecute that person, because society as a 
whole cannot tolerate such a crime.

>                                           Calling majority rule
>totalitarianism may be correct in a sense but it's also useless - unlike a
>rule-of-one, you can't change majority policy by a few (successful) acts (say
>assassination of a dictator, for example). You can only harm individuals and
>increase resentment against your cause. No sane individual would adopt such a
>course, which says something important about those who are now incarcerated for
>doing so ...../Leigh

I think it is not so much a matter of obeying the law, but of the question
which means are acceptable for some cause. I cannot think of any cause
(here in The Netherlands, or the USA) that justify killing, arson, or
destruction of property. But I can think of causes that justify obstructing
of roads or entrances to building, etc.

>--------------------------------------------------------
>It's only work if somebody makes you do it    .../Calvin
>--------------------------------------------------------
>Leigh Clayton                  loc@yrloc.ipsa.reuter.COM
>    -or-                     loc@ipsaint.ipsa.reuter.COM

Frank Teusink
Newsgroups: rec.food.veg