The law is, naturally, maintained by the state and the people that chose to obey the law. Without the existence of a state you would lack almost every luxury that you currently have, it is highly unlikely that without it you would be capable of reading this. Therefore, if you owe so much to the state then does that give them the moral right to enforce the law that they see fit to enforce? This includes paying your taxes, and them using them as they see fit. Basically, if they have provived, and will provide, for you for the rest of your life, do you not think that it should be the honour of the people to obey the law? Secondly, I wish to state my view on an age old question. Why were laws originally created, and for what purpose do we maintain them? This does tie in largely with the question of human nature, a topic I find very interesting. I believe that law is a creation of the people, to protect the people. If the, widely believed, negative nature of humans was to be an accurate representation of our nature then surely it would be much more beneficial for the lawmakers, and law abiders, to abolish law, they would be provided with the capability to rise to a high a position as is possible, without the constraints of the law, if human greed was the most important human urge. And another point that is often argued is that laws exist out of humans instinct for survival. I also reject this claim due to a simple observation. Humans live in the most dangerous enviroments that they can possibly create, cities. Surely it would be much safer to live with a commune, away from people that you can't trust and people that hide their true motives from you. Speaking realistically, there is nothing the law can do to stop a psychopath from going on a rampage. At the end of the day they are still capable of it, with or without laws. The best method of surival would be to detatch yourself from society, and laws.
No. But don't expect a judge to accept your moral conflict with whatever law you've broken as an argument for your innocence.
I don't know what a "morale obligation" is. I suppose it could mean that we need a certain level of confidence in the law. Perhaps you mean that our spirits would need to be at the requisite amounts in order for us to fulfill this obligation? I don't think either is a particularly compelling idea.
I might forgive a typo, but you clearly used the incorrect word, twice. And you still haven't fixed your mistake.
no i dont but without law and order we will return to a very dangerous (Survival of the fittest) way of life
You are pointing out that I am wrong in order to achieve some kind of pathetic fulfilment for your life.
I don't know about that. I'm mostly just irritated by ignorance of a native language. Also, "fulfillment".
Take it easy bro. The gargantuan super-erection you're getting from correcting grammar/spelling mistakes on the internet is likely to tear a hole in the fabric of reality, ultimately releasing the Dark Lord Cthulhu into our plain of existence and ushering in an eon of chaos that will render all discussion of law and morality futile.
Also, "I'm mostly just irritated by ignorance of a native language," implies that you're calling English both an indigenous language, and ignorant. It in no way attacks the user, which is what you're trying to do, because he isn't the subject of the sentance.... To the OP, read this: Thomas Acquinis, Summa Theologica ... He advances a natural law theory that basically suggests if the law is unjust it is not a law.
In short: No. Essentially what government is saying is: "You cannot do x and we will punish you for doing it". No one asked if I agreed to it or not, I'm forced to obey the laws. Never did I sign "Do you accept terms & conditions" paper. I consider obeying laws as "optional" and would I choose to break one I'm fully aware of the consequences. I do not have moral obligation to obey the law because of this principle, but in large part I do because I tend to agree on our current laws.
