When I think about it, my actions are very rarely dictated by what the law says. I follow my own moral standards and usually they're aligned with the law anyway but when they're not, there's no question what I follow. I think the only times I follow the law instead of my morals (when they're in conflict) is when there's a cop within sight, lol.

How about you? Is there an intrinsic value in obeying the law, or is it always trumped by your own moral compass?

I will now assume that you're all a bunch of immoral, lawless hoodlums!

retina said:

When I think about it, my actions are very rarely dictated by what the law says. I follow my own moral standards and usually they're aligned with the law anyway but when they're not, there's no question what I follow. I think the only times I follow the law instead of my morals (when they're in conflict) is when there's a cop within sight, lol.

How about you? Is there an intrinsic value in obeying the law, or is it always trumped by your own moral compass?

Intrinsic value?

You mean, like, not going to jail?

You never know when you'll be caught.

I've been caught breaking the law (innocuously, I thought - not that the cops asked) when I thought no police were in sight.

I mean,

AAAAGGGHHH!

Animal eat baby cuz HUNGRY! Why rest Animal? AAAAAGGGHHHH!

"Intrinsic value" means that it has a value in and of itself. In other words if you believe the law has an intrinsic value you don't obey it because it's the best way not to get busted (that would be more of a pragmatic attitude), you obey it because it has a built-in righteousness or wisdom or good sense that is worth following, kind of like your moral judgement has its own built-in value that makes you follow that.

In even simpler terms (since I realize that I'm making this more complex that it needs to be):

What is more worthy of your loyalty - the law or your own morals?

Do you always stick with one, or does it maybe depend on the situation, and if so - how and why?

Or in Animal terms:

AAAGGHHHH! LAW GOOOOD! MORALS BETTER?

retina said:

"Intrinsic value" means that it has a value in and of itself. In other words if you believe the law has an intrinsic value you don't obey it because it's the best way not to get busted (that would be more of a pragmatic attitude), you obey it because it has a built-in righteousness or wisdom or good sense that is worth following, kind of like your moral judgement has its own built-in value that makes you follow that.

In even simpler terms (since I realize that I'm making this more complex that it needs to be):

What is more worthy of your loyalty - the law or your own morals?

Do you always stick with one, or does it maybe depend on the situation, and if so - how and why?

Or in Animal terms:

AAAGGHHHH! LAW GOOOOD! MORALS BETTER?

I'm aware of the definition and understood your question; I was being facetious.

Just offering my experience as an example of a motivation other than blind obedience OR moral values.

All things being equal, I would say my moral judgment trumps the law in my world. Laws are often based on arbitrary political/economic goals, or simple control, as opposed to what's right and wrong.

But in the real world, not going to jail trumps all for me. And here in the United States (not sure about elsewhere), who you are, what you look like, how much money you have, and where you live can all drastically affect your chances of being targeted by police. It seems that being poor is criminalized here. For example: if you don't have enough money to renew your vehicle registration in time, you can be pulled over for an expired sticker, given a hefty fine and your vehicle towed and impounded. Now you're responsible for the registration fee you couldn't afford in the first place, plus the fine, the tow fee and a daily fee for your vehicle being kept in the tow yard. Let's say you can't pay the fine even if you want to. A warrant is eventually issued for your arrest. You end up in jail for the crime of having no money.

I went off on a tangent there, and I know it's not what you asked, but to me it's much more complicated than moral standards vs. rule of law.

PunkMistress said:

I'm aware of the definition and understood your question; I was being facetious.

Just offering my experience as an example of a motivation other than blind obedience OR moral values.

All things being equal, I would say my moral judgment trumps the law in my world. Laws are often based on arbitrary political/economic goals, or simple control, as opposed to what's right and wrong.

I think you're right, which is why I check with my morals first and the law last when I make decisions that don't already obviously fit within the boundaries of either. But I think a lot of people feel that respect for and obedience to the law is something worth taking pride in, and often equate it with living a decent moral life (human beings' sense of right and wrong is after all the basis and origin of pretty much all laws even though factors like the ones you mentioned have been allowed to play a part as well). So that link between morals and law is something I find interesting, and I do understand those who don't usually separate the two.

But in the real world, not going to jail trumps all for me. And here in the United States (not sure about elsewhere), who you are, what you look like, how much money you have, and where you live can all drastically affect your chances of being targeted by police. It seems that being poor is criminalized here. For example: if you don't have enough money to renew your vehicle registration in time, you can be pulled over for an expired sticker, given a hefty fine and your vehicle towed and impounded. Now you're responsible for the registration fee you couldn't afford in the first place, plus the fine, the tow fee and a daily fee for your vehicle being kept in the tow yard. Let's say you can't pay the fine even if you want to. A warrant is eventually issued for your arrest. You end up in jail for the crime of having no money.

I went off on a tangent there, and I know it's not what you asked, but to me it's much more complicated than moral standards vs. rule of law.

It's funny that you brought up the topic of poverty and vehicle ownership because I recently got into a heated discussion on another thread about how people prioritize their spending when they're poor and I think I stepped on a nationalistic nerve when I pointed out that Americans seem to prioritize their cars much more highly than the rest of the world.

But anyways... lol

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that you can get caught in a vortex of criminalization where one offense automatically leads to the next if you're not careful, even though you might not have had any criminal intent in the first place. There are lots of misguided laws out there, and they often hit the hardest against the least deserving. A more regular followup of the actual consequences of the laws and updates accordingly would be most welcome.

retina said:

I think you're right, which is why I check with my morals first and the law last when I make decisions that don't already obviously fit within the boundaries of either. But I think a lot of people feel that respect for and obedience to the law is something worth taking pride in, and often equate it with living a decent moral life (human beings' sense of right and wrong is after all the basis and origin of pretty much all laws even though factors like the ones you mentioned have been allowed to play a part as well). So that link between morals and law is something I find interesting, and I do understand those who don't usually separate the two.

I see. Well, "the law" as a concept and as an entity is pretty tainted for me. Even assuming that laws originate from "human beings' sense of right and wrong," humans on the whole can be quite stupid, misguided, self-serving, base and nasty. So I would say I have absolutely no sense of pride or intrinsic worth in obeying "the law." Living a decent moral life is something I define entirely based on what I've learned, and continue to learn, about what is just, ethical, honest, fair; "right."

It's funny that you brought up the topic of poverty and vehicle ownership because I recently got into a heated discussion on another thread about how people prioritize their spending when they're poor and I think I stepped on a nationalistic nerve when I pointed out that Americans seem to prioritize their cars much more highly than the rest of the world.

But anyways... lol

I hear what you're saying, and I agree that you can get caught in a vortex of criminalization where one offense automatically leads to the next if you're not careful, even though you might not have had any criminal intent in the first place. There are lots of misguided laws out there, and they often hit the hardest against the least deserving. A more regular followup of the actual consequences of the laws and updates accordingly would be most welcome.

In re: cars, I agree with you to a certain extent. But it's not always a matter of prioritizing; it's often a necessity if you don't live in a big city. In the city where I was born and raised, I went years without a car, as almost everything was in walking distance and anything else was accesible by public transporation. In fact, I didn't get my first car until I was 25 years old and my kids were 7 and 4.

Now I live in a sprawling suburban area where my place of employment, grocery stores and other places I need to get to aren't centrally or conveniently located. None are within reasonable walking distance, and for me bicycling isn't an option due to a genetic disorder that affects my connective tissues and, in turn, my mobility.

Second tangent over.

PunkMistress said:

I see. Well, "the law" as a concept and as an entity is pretty tainted for me. Even assuming that laws originate from "human beings' sense of right and wrong," humans on the whole can be quite stupid, misguided, self-serving, base and nasty. So I would say I have absolutely no sense of pride or intrinsic worth in obeying "the law." Living a decent moral life is something I define entirely based on what I've learned, and continue to learn, about what is just, ethical, honest, fair; "right."

Yes, like I said my personal stance is very similar to yours. I'm just saying that although I don't agree with them, I can empathize with those who don't clearly separate law from morals since there are often commonalities between the two. Plus we're brought up to obey the law by the same parents that teach us morals, so a mixup or a somewhat blurry border between these areas of life is to be expected.

Yeah I understand why you need it. When I had that discussion I was talking about people in general, and I do find it amusing sometimes when I hear about folks who can barely feed themselves but happily feed their car with gas. It's not always an absolute necessity to prioritize that way.

retina said:

PunkMistress said:

I see. Well, "the law" as a concept and as an entity is pretty tainted for me. Even assuming that laws originate from "human beings' sense of right and wrong," humans on the whole can be quite stupid, misguided, self-serving, base and nasty. So I would say I have absolutely no sense of pride or intrinsic worth in obeying "the law." Living a decent moral life is something I define entirely based on what I've learned, and continue to learn, about what is just, ethical, honest, fair; "right."

Yes, like I said my personal stance is very similar to yours. I'm just saying that although I don't agree with them, I can empathize with those who don't clearly separate law from morals since there are often commonalities between the two. Plus we're brought up to obey the law by the same parents that teach us morals, so a mixup or a somewhat blurry border between these areas of life is to be expected.

In re: cars, I agree with you to a certain extent. But it's not always a matter of prioritizing; it's often a necessity if you don't live in a big city. In the city where I was born and raised, I went years without a car, as almost everything was in walking distance and anything else was accesible by public transporation. In fact, I didn't get my first car until I was 25 years old and my kids were 7 and 4.

Now I live in a sprawling suburban area where my place of employment, grocery stores and other places I need to get to aren't centrally or conveniently located. None are within reasonable walking distance, and for me bicycling isn't an option due to a genetic disorder that affects my connective tissues and, in turn, my mobility.

Second tangent over.

Yeah I understand why you need it. When I had that discussion I was talking about people in general, and I do find it amusing sometimes when I hear about folks who can barely feed themselves but happily feed their car with gas. It's not always an absolute necessity to prioritize that way.

What I find amusing (I'm gonna get crucified for this) is when I read a story about a poor family who is supposedly on the brink of starvation and receives some sort of help to "put food on the table," and they all weigh 350 pounds.

Starving, my ass! Save some a that Cheeto money and pay yo electric bill!

(yes, I understand the links between poverty and obesity, incluing the affordability and availability of unhealthy foods versus healthy foods)

PunkMistress said:

retina said:

Yeah I understand why you need it. When I had that discussion I was talking about people in general, and I do find it amusing sometimes when I hear about folks who can barely feed themselves but happily feed their car with gas. It's not always an absolute necessity to prioritize that way.

What I find amusing (I'm gonna get crucified for this) is when I read a story about a poor family who is supposedly on the brink of starvation and receives some sort of help to "put food on the table," and they all weigh 350 pounds.

Starving, my ass! Save some a that Cheeto money and pay yo electric bill!

(yes, I understand the links between poverty and obesity, incluing the affordability and availability of unhealthy foods versus healthy foods)

Yeah it sounds like a little starvation there would actually be a good thing. lol