Lawless for a week..
Discuss the merits and deficiencies of political theories and philosophical questions.
| Announcements | Posted on | |
|---|---|---|
| TSR launches Learn Together! - Our new subscription to help improve your learning | 16-05-2013 | |
-
- Reputation:
- Junior Member
- Posts: 69
Re: Lawless for a week..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?(Original post by max-ee-milian)
It would be a free for all, since we would always express our own subjective morals. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 50
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..What makes you so sure of that?(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"
As morals are subjective, then you cannot rule out anything, can you? -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 50
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..Subjective morality is a fact. It's no more surprising than saying "water is made up of two elements".(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? -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 601
Re: Lawless for a week..So sure of what? That when law breaks down, most people will try to live as honest human beings?(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?
(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. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 50
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..Fairness is subjective. There also would be no benefit or force to make people follow laws. I think it would be anarchy.(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. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Location: Rouen
- Posts: 124
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..(Original post by Hood_Man)
...Download EVERYTHING!!
kiddie porn too?
-
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 601
Re: Lawless for a week..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.(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.
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. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 50
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..These groups would just fight against each other.(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)
Or they seize power, or recruit persons into their groups? It's possible there could be perpetual conflict.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. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 601
Re: Lawless for a week..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!(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.
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. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Posts: 50
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..I disagree, since there would be no overall or supreme authority.(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.
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. -
- Reputation:
- Benevolent Member
- Posts: 601
Re: Lawless for a week..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.(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.
I think eventually you'd get something stable. -
- Reputation:
- Banned
- Location: London
- Posts: 2,669
- Warning points: 1000
Re: Lawless for a week..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).
FREEDOM!
