Brian Blackwell
Senior Member
- Mar 10, 2018
- 994
- 129
- 45
- Banned
- #1
In this thread, I will outline a simple argument that demonstrates the inherent inconsistency between morality and governmental law. Following the formal argument, you will find a more thorough explanation of supporting reasoning. I hope some here will find this investigation thought-provoking, and I look forward to discussing these ideas with anyone who is interested.
THE ARGUMENT
1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.
2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.
3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.
THE INVESTIGATION
Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.
Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.
If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.
If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.
In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).
A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.
I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.
*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here:
THE ARGUMENT
1. Morality, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.
2. Governmental law, to have authority, must be a primary obligatory standard for individual behavior.
3. Therefore, since only one authority may hold the primary place as a standard for individual behavior, morality and governmental law are mutually exclusive -- where one holds sway, the other cannot.
THE INVESTIGATION
Morality, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to provide an authoritative determination as to whether it is right or wrong for an individual to perform a particular action, given a particular set of circumstances. If, at any point, morality is relegated to a secondary position relative to another standard, it no longer holds authority to prescribe or prohibit action, and thus ceases to exist.
Likewise, governmental law, to exist as such, must stand above all other standards of behavior; for its sole function is to prescribe or prohibit action within the scope of its jurisdiction, independent of all other considerations. Obviously, were governmental law made to abide exceptions based upon moral claims, it could not perform its sole function. If, therefore, governmental law is relegated to a secondary position, it no longer holds authority, and thus ceases to exist as law.
If governmental law dictates something that is not in accord with the individual’s moral standard, and the law is permitted to act as the primary obligation, the moral obligation is made utterly void. For what would it mean to say “I am personally obliged to perform this action, and also obliged not to perform it.” Clearly, where discrepancies occur, one standard must be chosen to take precedence, and in so doing, the other will be obviated entirely. We may feel torn between two systems of obligation, but where they contradict, we cannot act in accordance with both. A man cannot have two masters.
If, on the other hand, governmental law is in perfect harmony with the individual’s moral standard, we may say that one of the standards is redundant, and thus irrelevant (or non-existent). If the moral standard is held as primary and dictates that murder is wrong, and governmental law also dictates that murder is wrong, it can be seen that the governmental law was not the authoritative standard that prohibited the action, as the action was already prohibited by the moral standard. The governmental law becomes a meaningless echo, as the individual did not refrain from the action on its authority. The adherence to such a law occurred merely by coincidence.
In conclusion, we can see that it would be impossible for a single individual to be (as an overarching personal characteristic) both a “moral person” (one who is guided by morality as a primary obligatory standard for behavior) and a “law-abiding citizen” (one who is guided by governmental law as a primary obligatory standard).
A choice must be made; and if one chooses to be a moral person, it necessarily follows that governmental law holds no authority in their lives. Since it would be in defiance of reason and basic human equality to hold others to a standard of authority which one does not abide by personally, any voluntary acknowledgement or support of governmental law as an authority in the lives of others (such as voting, willingly paying taxes, taking employment funded by taxes, etc.) is both illogical and immoral.
I welcome reactions and pointed refutations relevant to the above argument and investigation. It should be noted that I did not adopt the above reasoning in an attempt to justify a previously held position; but instead found myself necessarily compelled to adopt the position by the irrefutability of the reasoning. You may find yourself similarly compelled upon earnest investigation of your own moral position, and be freed from the tiresome futile debates concerning the particulars of politics and governmental law.
*The title of this thread was chosen in honor of Lysander Spooner's lucid examination of the U.S. Constitution titled "No Treason", which can be found in audiobook format on YouTube here: