> I'll go a step further and point out that you have no way of ever proving that the morals you carry as an individual weren't gifted to you by that same society.
Oh sure, I won't deny I'm influenced by the society around me, but my morality can't be entirely a product of that society, otherwise I wouldn't find any laws to be unjust.
> You and I don't agree with that, but we aren't a product of the 20s. If you think you would be an exception, then I'd call you egotistical.
But I was in minority when it came to gay rights in the 1990s, and I'm in the current minority when it comes to trans rights in the 2020s.
Why do you assume that I wouldn't also be in the minority regarding civil rights, were I born earlier? I'm not saying I'd be in the 1%, but I'd like to think I'd at least be in the 40%.
I guess I should at least applaud the honesty of someone who implies they would be supporting the Klan or worse if they were born a century earlier, but I think your mistake is assuming everyone is like you.
> In doing any of those things, they've ceased to be protesters. They are now rioters. Rioting is illegal. And it does warrant a violent response.
I would consider that to be extremely immoral. All this time we've been talking about how violence should be a last resort, and now suddenly it isn't?
> Let's look even closer; blocking a highway prevents emergency transportation causing loss of life.
The emergency vehicles would use the shoulder to pass the traffic, and the protestors could just move out the way when an emergency vehicle came. I'm not saying you don't have a point that lives could be endangered, but it's a leap to say that people would certainly die, even in this hypothetical example of yours.
And what about graffiti? How would that endanger life?
> No it's a good way to kill people. See the examples above. You've just lowered your moral standing to less than the law. I don't see how you can come back from that.
So all non-violent civil disobedience is immoral, because you were able to think of an example of how a specific act of civil disobedience could be the cause of a death.
Fine. Let's use the same logic on laws.
The second amendment guarantees every American a right to bear arms, but this includes Americans who are irresponsible. An irresponsible gun owner might leave their firearm where a child could find it, leading to the death of that child.
Voilà: a example of how a specific law could cause a death, which by your logic means all laws must be immoral.
> The columns are getting too narrow to continue. I wish you well, and I hope you'll change your mind about breaking the law, or that you'll at least wind up in jail before you get someone killed.
Thanks for the discussion. I can assure you that I have no current plans to break the law, but if a dream team of professional criminals recruits me for an ambitious and improbable casino heist, you understand that I can't make any guarantees.
Oh sure, I won't deny I'm influenced by the society around me, but my morality can't be entirely a product of that society, otherwise I wouldn't find any laws to be unjust.
> You and I don't agree with that, but we aren't a product of the 20s. If you think you would be an exception, then I'd call you egotistical.
But I was in minority when it came to gay rights in the 1990s, and I'm in the current minority when it comes to trans rights in the 2020s.
Why do you assume that I wouldn't also be in the minority regarding civil rights, were I born earlier? I'm not saying I'd be in the 1%, but I'd like to think I'd at least be in the 40%.
I guess I should at least applaud the honesty of someone who implies they would be supporting the Klan or worse if they were born a century earlier, but I think your mistake is assuming everyone is like you.
> In doing any of those things, they've ceased to be protesters. They are now rioters. Rioting is illegal. And it does warrant a violent response.
I would consider that to be extremely immoral. All this time we've been talking about how violence should be a last resort, and now suddenly it isn't?
> Let's look even closer; blocking a highway prevents emergency transportation causing loss of life.
The emergency vehicles would use the shoulder to pass the traffic, and the protestors could just move out the way when an emergency vehicle came. I'm not saying you don't have a point that lives could be endangered, but it's a leap to say that people would certainly die, even in this hypothetical example of yours.
And what about graffiti? How would that endanger life?
> No it's a good way to kill people. See the examples above. You've just lowered your moral standing to less than the law. I don't see how you can come back from that.
So all non-violent civil disobedience is immoral, because you were able to think of an example of how a specific act of civil disobedience could be the cause of a death.
Fine. Let's use the same logic on laws.
The second amendment guarantees every American a right to bear arms, but this includes Americans who are irresponsible. An irresponsible gun owner might leave their firearm where a child could find it, leading to the death of that child.
Voilà: a example of how a specific law could cause a death, which by your logic means all laws must be immoral.
> The columns are getting too narrow to continue. I wish you well, and I hope you'll change your mind about breaking the law, or that you'll at least wind up in jail before you get someone killed.
Thanks for the discussion. I can assure you that I have no current plans to break the law, but if a dream team of professional criminals recruits me for an ambitious and improbable casino heist, you understand that I can't make any guarantees.