Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Lawless for a week..

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Student Finance explained - on TSR from 2 - 3pm 17-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It would be a free for all, since we would always express our own subjective morals.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by max-ee-milian)
    It would be a free for all, since we would always express our own subjective morals.
    Max-ee...you have a thing for subjective morals don't you :P I completely agree, but I think you should use the term 'relative morality' instead of subjective morality cos it's just a bit clearer?
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well, I'd rob a bank or two, so that I could be lawless for the rest of my life FREEDOM!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Yes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hearty_Beast)
    Yeah but this isn't about not getting caught. There would be no laws (for you) so everything you do (shoplifting, stealing, speeding etc,) would be legal. ie: you wouldn't be caught coz you wouldn't be doing anything wrong (technically)
    And you're wrong, people do think about others. Stealing from a big company (it's easy to look at companies as not having human faces) is different from murder, or mugging random people because "you wouldn't get caught".
    Most people put their own interests above others, but most people also have morals, and probably view eg. stealing from the poor as wrong. A minorities actions in a riot isn't the basis for human nature.

    I personally would try to live life normally/honestly, just without paying unless I want to. eg, I'd pay at the family owned/run newsagents, but I'd walk my trolley straight out of Sainsbury's and share my free "purchases" with whoever wanted/needed them (coz Sainsbury's can afford a little) maybe "rob" a bank.
    I would try not to do anything which would damage anyone else personally though...

    Anyway, most things aren't helped by going against the law... It has a purpose and it does it well.
    If there was no law, most people would live by morals alone, probably a "do as you would have done to" you sort of system. The problem would be the few who don't care (who would probably get banished after time)
    Stuff like schooling, health services and police would go down the toilet (due to unstable funding), along with "trust"
    What makes you so sure of that?

    As morals are subjective, then you cannot rule out anything, can you?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElationAndPathways)
    Max-ee...you have a thing for subjective morals don't you :P I completely agree, but I think you should use the term 'relative morality' instead of subjective morality cos it's just a bit clearer?
    Subjective morality is a fact. It's no more surprising than saying "water is made up of two elements".
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by max-ee-milian)
    What makes you so sure of that?

    As morals are subjective, then you cannot rule out anything, can you?
    So sure of what? That when law breaks down, most people will try to live as honest human beings?
    (it would of helped if you'd highlighted some...)

    Because people are willing to live within a fair system. And a system is better than the alternative: anarchy. Thats why governments work.

    Morals are subjective, but most people agree on some things, and "do as you would have done to you" or "live and let live" generally covers the basics of what we expect/would be happy with in a fair society.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hearty_Beast)
    So sure of what? That when law breaks down, most people will try to live as honest human beings?
    (it would of helped if you'd highlighted some...)

    Because people are willing to live within a fair system. And a system is better than the alternative: anarchy. Thats why governments work.

    Morals are subjective, but most people agree on some things, and "do as you would have done to you" or "live and let live" generally covers the basics of what we expect/would be happy with in a fair society.
    Fairness is subjective. There also would be no benefit or force to make people follow laws. I think it would be anarchy.
    • 5 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    i would steal 5 pounds from every rich person in the world.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hood_Man)
    ...Download EVERYTHING!!

    kiddie porn too?
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I reckon it'd be interesting to see what would happen if every law was disabled for a week, for everyone.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd speak freely without the fear of repercussions. OH WAIT.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I'd bring my own alcohol into a bar, sit there, and just drink it quite happily, knowing that it cost me 1/10 of the price they'd serve it for. :smug:
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by max-ee-milian)
    Fairness is subjective. There also would be no benefit or force to make people follow laws. I think it would be anarchy.
    The benefit would be to have a system by which everyone contributes to and gains from protection or food or health or education. But rather than laws, we'd just have small communities of like-minded people.

    It's the reason we have laws now: they're good for us and life runs smoother and safer when we follow them!

    Without laws, there would be no production, of anything! And what we do have would begin to fall apart because noone would maintain them. (because there'd be no benefit to them to do so)

    Yes there would be people who run rampant, but eventually they'd die, because they wouldn't have anyone to help them. And there'd be noone to miss them.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hearty_Beast)
    The benefit would be to have a system by which everyone contributes to and gains from protection or food or health or education. But rather than laws, we'd just have small communities of like-minded people.

    It's the reason we have laws now: they're good for us and life runs smoother and safer when we follow them!

    Without laws, there would be no production, of anything! And what we do have would begin to fall apart because noone would maintain them. (because there'd be no benefit to them to do so)
    These groups would just fight against each other.
    Yes there would be people who run rampant, but eventually they'd die, because they wouldn't have anyone to help them. And there'd be noone to miss them.
    Or they seize power, or recruit persons into their groups? It's possible there could be perpetual conflict.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by max-ee-milian)
    These groups would just fight against each other.


    Or they seize power, or recruit persons into their groups? It's possible there could be perpetual conflict.
    There may be conflict, at least until you end up with a few large groups who are happy to "live and let live". Maybe even trade!

    They'll have their own rules/"laws" and you eventually end up with a system with different (though similar) laws to what we have now.

    Except we'd no longer have electricity/factories/prisons/hospitals/universities/internet etc. because they'd have disappeared in the beginning and likely enough noone would know how to run it anymore...

    We have these systems because they work. If law disappeared, then there would be a difficult time, then eventually you end up with something similar, except worse.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hearty_Beast)
    There may be conflict, at least until you end up with a few large groups who are happy to "live and let live". Maybe even trade!

    They'll have their own rules/"laws" and you eventually end up with a system with different (though similar) laws to what we have now.

    Except we'd no longer have electricity/factories/prisons/hospitals/universities/internet etc. because they'd have disappeared in the beginning and likely enough noone would know how to run it anymore...

    We have these systems because they work. If law disappeared, then there would be a difficult time, then eventually you end up with something similar, except worse.
    I disagree, since there would be no overall or supreme authority.

    Some people may seek to be continuously disruptive. In history, there have been groups who conquered nearby groups all the time. Whilst many may seek to live peacefully, both internally and externally, there would IMO be the constant threat of attack. Essentially it's no different to how nation-states exist now. The reason the UK doesn't fear attack is due to the EU and NATO. Obviously in a historical sense the UK had many enemies on the Continent.
    • 1 follower
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by max-ee-milian)
    I disagree, since there would be no overall or supreme authority.

    Some people may seek to be continuously disruptive. In history, there have been groups who conquered nearby groups all the time. Whilst many may seek to live peacefully, both internally and externally, there would IMO be the constant threat of attack. Essentially it's no different to how nation-states exist now. The reason the UK doesn't fear attack is due to the EU and NATO. Obviously in a historical sense the UK had many enemies on the Continent.
    Yes, there would be fighting til they reach something similar to now. And we don't have a supreme authority, we have a democratically elected government, who bicker among themselves til nothing gets done.

    I think eventually you'd get something stable.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Wow, for a week?! I'd just take whatever I ever wanted from a shop...

    But then I'd realise the futility of it and then hand it all back before the week ends :getmecoat:
    • 44 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Well since I'm not obliged to conform to the law thus I'm not going to be shot nor my actions questioned when I go into a bank and take (since I'm not robbing, it's taking/borrowing? whatever gets me the money).

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 17, 2012
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.