Should one adhere to the letter of the law at all times?
>>68089734
The idea that any Frenchman in history ever did is thinkable only to a Frenchman.
I obey the law entirely except for meth. Fight me.
>>68089734
A better question is why people don't think about why a law exists in the first place.
>>68089734
When a law is unjust there is an ethical obligation to ignore it.
>>68089734
>posting literally the worst Javert ever
Fuck off. GOAT Javert coming through.
No, but one should always adhere to its spirit. Straight up breaking the law is never acceptable unless the law itself is a bad law. Bad =/= I disagree with it, bad = not reflective of the will of the society whom the law is imposed on.
If 99% of people want a morally unjust police state and create laws that reflect that and you don't then fuck your dumb opinion, do what you're told or fuck off. The spirit of the law is always what ought to prevail, even over our own morals, because no single individual has the right to impose law on others under the auspices of "I alone know what is best for all".
NOW PRISONER 42601
>>68090303
P.S. I'll give 10 internets to whoever can spot my hypocrisy.
If the Law in question is not blind by nature then you shouldn't obey it.
The law must be created to serve society at large, not created to serve special interest groups.
>>68089998
I don't have to, you'll have enough problems fighting your refrigerator.
>>68090566
The fact that if people want an unjust police state each of those individuals is trying to impose law upon others based upon what they think is best for all?
>>68090691
Take the redpill see how far down the rabbit hole you can go. You are misinformed.
>>68089734
>Should one adhere to the letter of the law at all times?
does your government?
>>68089734
AND
I'M
JAVERT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEVago2PKn0
>>68090915
Close, but in that case those individuals are not enforcing their opinion on the majority because each of their individual opinions is shared by many others.
You're technically correct, but only because of my own bad wording. When I said "others" I meant the majority. All laws are imposed on others - that's what law is - but you want to impose it on the least amount of people.
The hypocrisy I was thinking about is that my belief that the spirit of the law should always be obeyed because it is the will of the people is something that I am trying to impose on all people, when it's highly unlikely that the majority of people agree with me. I am, in effect, attempting to do the same thing I am railing against.
There is another flaw too, but it's not a hypocrisy. Basically I am claiming that every person who suffers under a law they disagree with is 1 unit of suffering, and you want as few units of suffering. However I do not account for how somebody who gets a parking ticket probably suffers less than somebody who gets executed for being the wrong colour. Both situations are perceived as equal suffering under the "majority rules" system.
Nevertheless I generally believe in what I said. The spirit of the law should pretty much always be followed, even where the law is unjust, because if people want to live in an unjust society then you should respect that. However, I am essentially saying that unjust societies are justified by majority support.
These three flaws are partially resolved if you understand morality as a relative system (like I do). When there is no such thing as right or wrong it only makes sense to say "whatever most people want is fine, I guess." However, it creates a bigger problem: if morality is relative you're under no real obligation to do what I just told you to. My beliefs aren't any more correct than yours.
Law and philosophy are best when they're separate. Law is for practical solutions to real problems. Philosophy is for wank.
>>68090172
Came here to say this. Your personal moral compass takes priority over a country's laws.
Am I the only one who was on Javert's side the whole time? The law is more important than individual lives.
Javert was a man of honour, who stood by his beliefs even into death, who defended his country against violence and lawlessness, and I'm supposed to side with some bourgeoise students who feel a little bit sorry for poor people?
Fuck you, victor hugo, if it's either Valjean or Javert, I choose Javert.
>>68091656
That's just an example of a man sticking to his own morals instead of the law. For instance, you mentioned he held his beliefs under lawlessness.
>>68089734
Everyone else definitely should.
>>68091656
This. When Javert thought he was in the wrong, his first act was to immediately incriminate himself and give the putatively wronged party the chance to denounce him. Can you imagine what France would have been if it was governed by such men?
>>68091601
Brilliant bants
>>68090931
Because refrigerators are shitty fighters?
Degenerates like you die in my city every week, another one wont make a difference.
>>68091616
This
>>68091616
>Came here to say this. Your personal moral compass takes priority over a country's laws.
Found the muslim.
First you must understand why the laws where put into place.
Then you must look at the current state of the country and decide if they are helping or hurting the country.
If they help, keep them. If they hurt, try to change them.
>>68090172
What is justice?
>>68092591
Guess I'm gonna go fuck some kiddies then
>>68094795
If you can get away with it, then go for it. I wish you the best of luck.
Jean Valjean shouldnt have tried escaping mere days from his release so many times and maybe he wouldnt be so butthurt about MUH 19 YEARS. He was a drain on the system that shouldve been executed.
