Should We Have Laws Despite Lawbreakers?

[Left Coast]

Right. And almost all human beings would agree that they do the same. It's only me and a handful of scientists who would disagree.

I highly doubt that Jonathan Haidt or any other psychologist denies that out of all 7 billion people on our planet, not one of them ever engages in moral reasoning before acting. Are we often acting by inference and intuition? Obviously. Do we also often think through our choices and try to make reasonable decisions? Obviously.

Again, none of this changes the need for laws to organize society.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Should we stop using the simplistic argument that we shouldn't have a law because criminals will just do it anyway?

No. A good set of laws designed to make society safe and otherwise desirable to live in is a good idea, and we should cheerfully submit to them as a part of the social contract.

However, if the social contract is broken and there are no consequences to the scofflaws, as when several people brazenly defy lawful subpoenas and they are allowed to do so, there is no longer a contract or a duty to obey the laws. Before that, one should not run a red light, for example, even if one is stopped at the intersection and can see clearly that proceeding on red would be safe. One waits anyway as part of that social contract and a respect for the law.

But once that contract is broken, there is no longer any duty to respect those laws, and they can be broken whenever one feels it is safe and advantageous to do so. We still don't run red lights if there is a real risk of an accident or a ticket, but not at any other time..

I realize that many will disagree here and say that one should still obey the law even if others are allowed to break it without consequence, but all I can say to them is that for me to participate cheerfully and willingly, I need to see a just system. I don't need for everybody to obey the law in order to obey it myself willingly, but I do need to know that those who get caught violating it will be penalized. If not, I lose interest in cooperating.

 

[joe1776]

I highly doubt that Jonathan Haidt or any other psychologist denies that out of all 7 billion people on our planet, not one of them ever engages in moral reasoning before acting. Are we often acting by inference and intuition? Obviously. Do we also often think through our choices and try to make reasonable decisions? Obviously.

Most of the statements that people (including you) make are meant as general statements and should be accepted as such unless they specifically use words like always, all or never. Otherwise, we'd have to begin so many of our statements with qualifiers like "as a general rule."

In this thread, you've pointed out exceptions as though you've made a logical argument against my general statements.

The key point in our debate is that Haidt and others doing moral research have found that most of our moral judgments are immediate and intuitive. The notion that we reason our way to most moral judgments is a delusion.

 

[Left Coast]

Most of the statements that people (including you) make are meant as general statements and should be accepted as such unless they specifically use words like always, all or never. Otherwise, we'd have to begin so many of our statements with qualifiers like "as a general rule."

In this thread, you've pointed out exceptions as though you've made a logical argument against my general statements.

The key point in our debate is that Haidt and others doing moral research have found that most of our moral judgments are immediate and intuitive. The notion that we reason our way to most moral judgments is a delusion.

I've pointed out "exceptions" that occur literally daily. When your rule requires constant exceptions, one should ask if your rule should be modified to better reflect reality. I conceded that we routinely make intuitive, immediate moral judgments and decisions. I also pointed out that we routinely make moral judgments and decisions preceded by conscious thought and planning. If that's not good enough for you, I can't help you.

Now, for the final time, this isn't actually relevant to the thread. Please direct any other comments you make in this thread to the topic outlined in the OP. Thanks.