Is it the Law to which men are bound?

[JBeukema]

Would you turn your 3-year-old daughter into a corrupt police force which hired only serial rapists and murderers if the Law said everyone with her hair colour was to be turned in for elimination?

Would you turn in Anne Frank?

Would you turn in an escaped slave?

All because the Law said you must?


Or are you bound to something other, something greater than the Law?

 

[Liability]

The law itself, ironically, may not recognize our natural right to object to an unjust law which does entail civil disobedience to an immoral law, but answering to a higher authority is as American as apple pie.

 

[JBeukema]

So liability is bound to something higher than the Law and admits it can be wrong, while NYcaribeener has admitted in another thread that he'd turn his own children into the NAZIs because the Law said he was supposed to.

What about everyone else?

 

[Madeline]

I suspect you are distorting what NYcaribeener has said. May we have a link?

I dun think the answer is a simple yes or no. Hopefully, we all feel we can submit to the social contract that binds us together. Obviously, there are times when we do not or can not.....but those should be rare.

 

[Avatar4321]

Would you turn your 3-year-old daughter into a corrupt police force which hired only serial rapists and murderers if the Law said everyone with her hair colour was to be turned in for elimination?

No, I'd dye her hair

Would you turn in Anne Frank?

Nope

Would you turn in an escaped slave?

Nope

All because the Law said you must?

Nope

Or are you bound to something other, something greater than the Law?

Yep

 

[Mr. Sauerkraut]

Would you turn your 3-year-old daughter into a corrupt police force which hired only serial rapists and murderers if the Law said everyone with her hair colour was to be turned in for elimination?

Would you turn in Anne Frank?

Would you turn in an escaped slave?

All because the Law said you must?


Or are you bound to something other, something greater than the Law?

nobody can answer this question seriously. when your life depends on it, you´ll do things you can´t imagine today. Anne Frank wasn´t traited by a fanatic nazi but from a fearish neighbour.

 

[editec]

Would you turn in your daughter?

That's an easy question.

Try facing what people living under the HAZI regime faced.

Would you help your neighbors if it meant you and your family's death if you were caught?

Now THAT is, I think, one of those questions that most people do not want to think about.

Nevertheless that is what most of Europe had to, at one time, decide.

 

[Liability]

So liability is bound to something higher than the Law and admits it can be wrong, while NYcaribeener has admitted in another thread that he'd turn his own children into the NAZIs because the Law said he was supposed to.

What about everyone else?

So as to be clear:

If the law is not immoral, then I am bound by it even if I don't care for it.


But I have no qualms in saying that there are some things that are plainly immoral, regardless of anything the law might say or claim to require.

Thus, if the law said I was forbidden from harboring a Jew in my home if the Nazis wanted to round up the Jews for more extermination, that law would be immoral and I would disregard it.

If the law required me to turn in my own daughter for some "offense," I would contemplate it. It depends. If it's "turning her in" for treatment due to a drug addiction, that might be perfectly moral. On the other hand, if it's turning her in for harboring some religious belief which had been banned, I would again flatly reject such a law as immoral, wrong and stupid and I would absolutely defy that law.

I am not very religious, myself. So the higher authority might not be "God." But I believe most of us recognize when something is morally wrong all the same.

Defying an immoral and unjust law is ok by me. Complying with an immoral and unjust law, by contrast, while it constitutes obedience to the law, is morally offensive and may be unjustifiable.

 

[Ropey]

So liability is bound to something higher than the Law and admits it can be wrong, while NYcaribeener has admitted in another thread that he'd turn his own children into the NAZIs because the Law said he was supposed to.

What about everyone else?

So as to be clear:

If the law is not immoral, then I am bound by it even if I don't care for it.


But I have no qualms in saying that there are some things that are plainly immoral, regardless of anything the law might say or claim to require.

Thus, if the law said I was forbidden from harboring a Jew in my home if the Nazis wanted to round up the Jews for more extermination, that law would be immoral and I would disregard it.

If the law required me to turn in my own daughter for some "offense," I would contemplate it. It depends. If it's "turning her in" for treatment due to a drug addiction, that might be perfectly moral. On the other hand, if it's turning her in for harboring some religious belief which had been banned, I would again flatly reject such a law as immoral, wrong and stupid and I would absolutely defy that law.

I am not very religious, myself. So the higher authority might not be "God." But I believe most of us recognize when something is morally wrong all the same.

Defying an immoral and unjust law is ok by me. Complying with an immoral and unjust law, by contrast, while it constitutes obedience to the law, is morally offensive and may be unjustifiable.

Excellent post. In the end, I believe we will not be judged for our countries choices, we will for our own.

The reason for beliefs is that we (humans) think morals matter. Morals do not birth from the books. The books birth because of the instilled understanding of right and wrong. Cultures can change the interpretations and create exceptions, but even then, those who go beyond their morals, often pay a human price for it.

I believe we pay a human and other-world price and that deep inside every one of us, and aside from religious studies, is the inner knowledge of right and wrong, so this inner knowledge transcends religion. I believe it to be spiritual in nature, not religious in nature.

The baser negative emotions shut this knowledge away.

 

[JBeukema]

If the law is not immoral, then I am bound by it even if I don't care for it.

So if they made it illegal to pick your nose, you'd be bound to it?

Why?

I suspect we're headed towards the social contract and whether you and I have a right to force our rules upon xotoxi against his will.

Ultimately, however, if the goes against your own conscience, you would agree that it is to one's own conscience that one is bound over the laws of the State, yes?

But I have no qualms in saying that there are some things that are plainly immoral, regardless of anything the law might say or claim to require.

Thus, if the law said I was forbidden from harboring a Jew in my home if the Nazis wanted to round up the Jews for more extermination, that law would be immoral and I would disregard it.

What if your neighbor argues that it is immoral to hide jews and more moral 'purify' humanity? That is, what is your response to Darwinists' moral arguments?

Is it then right for them to act according to their own conscience?

It seems we've opened quite a can of worms.

 

[Ropey]

It seems we've opened quite a can of worms.

It is a personal can of worms that we choose to keep closed or open by our own selves. If your neighbor feels that it is right for his morals to turn the Jew in, then he makes that personal choice.

In the end, we must stand to our own morals. Each person.

 

[Cuyo]

Would you turn your 3-year-old daughter into a corrupt police force which hired only serial rapists and murderers if the Law said everyone with her hair colour was to be turned in for elimination?

Would you turn in Anne Frank?

Would you turn in an escaped slave?

All because the Law said you must?


Or are you bound to something other, something greater than the Law?

I break laws all the time. I think most of us do.

 

[Gadawg73]

"If any man come to me and not hate his father, his mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sisters, and his own life, he can not be my disciple"

Are all of you preparing to burn in eternity for breaking that law?

 

[Ropey]

"If any man come to me and not hate his father, his mother, and wife, and children, and brethern, and sisters, and his own life, he can not be my disciple"

Are all of you preparing to burn in eternity for breaking that law?

All? This does not come from my book. For hate is considered vengeful and revenge is not ours.

Not that I haven't gone there before, but the above statement can not easily be qualified to "All".

Christians might want to answer your question because it applies to them. I doubt you will find that in the Qur'an either.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Would you turn your 3-year-old daughter into a corrupt police force which hired only serial rapists and murderers if the Law said everyone with her hair colour was to be turned in for elimination?

Would you turn in Anne Frank?

Would you turn in an escaped slave?

All because the Law said you must?


Or are you bound to something other, something greater than the Law?

Man is not bound to the law.

 

[Mr.Fitnah]

So liability is bound to something higher than the Law and admits it can be wrong, while NYcaribeener has admitted in another thread that he'd turn his own children into the NAZIs because the Law said he was supposed to.

What about everyone else?

NYcaribeener is an idiot who is incapable of coherent thought and is innocent in this case.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

adjective
2. tied; in bonds: a bound prisoner.
3. made fast as if by a band or bond: She is bound to her family.
4. secured within a cover, as a book.
5. under a legal or moral obligation: He is bound by the terms of the contract.
6. destined; sure; certain: It is bound to happen.
7. determined or resolved: He is bound to go.
8. Pathology . constipated.
9. Mathematics . (of a vector) having a specified initial point as well as magnitude and direction. Compare free ( def. 31 ) .
10. held with another element, substance, or material in chemical or physical union.
11. (of a linguistic form) occurring only in combination with other forms, as most affixes. Compare free ( def. 34 ) .







The Law, I figure, is all we're bound to "knowingly" because it is, by definition, an obligation.....i.e. breaking it results in a consequence i.e. you are bound to it.

Being bound.......... does not mean that you must obide and so I don't think being bound by something is the same as being a slave to it as I'm thinking your question actually intends.

I'm not a "slave" to the law, but I'm bound by it, and sometimes I do break it. Well, often in fact.



As far as anything else? I'm not sure, like God for instance, hasn't proven to me any consequences here or there and so one cannot "truthfully" answer that, only a faith based answer would be permitted.

The only way I would be legally obligated to follow the terms of a contract would be if I signed said contract. Since I did not sign any contract about the laws I am not bound by said laws. That alone proves we are not bound by law, but by something higher than law. That is how the moral obligation you highlighted comes into play.

 

[PixieStix]

Would you turn your 3-year-old daughter into a corrupt police force which hired only serial rapists and murderers if the Law said everyone with her hair colour was to be turned in for elimination?

Would you turn in Anne Frank?

Would you turn in an escaped slave?

All because the Law said you must?


Or are you bound to something other, something greater than the Law?

I am bound by my conscience. I am bound by that which is right, fair, and just, regardless of man made laws. Man made laws cannot become my conscience.