It wasn’t really meant to be, my opinion is that following the law for its own sake is a form of slave morality and a betrayal of one’s own moral principles, but I guess the meme is vague enough to be interpreted any which way.
following the law for it’s own sake is a form of slave morality
People don’t follow the law “for it’s own sake”. They have material reasons for supporting or transgressing, which they rationalize after the fact.
Sometimes it’s practical (driving the speed limit or not based on flow of traffic) and sometimes it’s formative (being hyper sensitive to street crime because you’ve got a memory of being robbed / reflectively shoplifting because you grew up food insecure). Maybe you’re the victim of abuse or just OCD.
But there are broad social, historical, and economic reasons to support/oppose a given legal code.
I think that in an ideal society, everyone would follow their own moral values and laws wouldn’t even be needed. That’s probably not achievable, but we can at least try to approach it.
I think the root of immorality is the prescriptive morality which is commonplace today. People only act pseudo-moral because either:
They are afraid of punishment (fully selfish reason)
God, the law, or whoever else said so (deferral to authority)
“Society would collapse” if they didn’t (still a selfish justification)
in reality, very few actually have internal moral values. As soon as those reasons disappear, they see no reason not to act immorally. Alternatively, they follow this imposed morality so strictly, that they don’t notice when it leads them to immoral actions (take for example religious fundamentalism or fascist regimes).
The solution is of course education, but our current education systems are terribly suited to producing moral people.
I think that in an ideal society, everyone would follow their own moral values and laws wouldn’t even be needed.
Morals don’t come ex nihilo. People develop them from social interactions and survival patterns, typically at a young age. The broad purpose of law is to set a publicly recognized boundary for universal conduct. It isn’t to simply be mean to people, but to publicly declare what a community of people values as socially valuable.
in reality, very few actually have internal moral values.
People largely have a certain internal sense of social justice. But they have a limited capacity to engage with their neighbors from any kind of authority position. The internal morality can get twisted when you constantly see yourself as a victim and feel the urge to right some existential wrong. Portraying one group as a victim and another as an aggressor is a classic propaganda technique used to inflame hostility between neighbors and socially justify violence.
The solution is of course education
At some level, sure. But it is difficult to inoculate a public at-large from all forms of deceptive media.
At another level, the solution needs to be establishing a general level of public contentedness and satisfaction. Agitation is less effective in a social circle that isn’t under high degrees of anxiety or fearful of deprivation. So long as we have the threat of poverty and stochastic violence hanging over people’s heads, we’re going to have the material for propaganda that agitate them into tension with their neighbors.
In my opinion, the main purpose behind law and punishment is deterrence from immoral actions. Punishment for its own sake is in no way good, it’s a necessary evil to deter immoral people from committing immoral actions. If there were no immoral people, there would be no one to deter and thus no use for law.
Sure, internal morality can get twisted, but only when it’s based in instinct (self preservation, subordination to authority, etc.), and that’s what I mean when I say pseudo-morality. Rational moral principles, on the other hand, are relatively reliable, clear and consistent. The main moral frameworks (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) agree on most significant scenarios, the differences are in the specificities.
The scapegoat phenomenon you mention is a great example of instinct (the ingroup-outgroup instinct), being taken advantage of for political manipulation. Education should include teaching people to recognize these instincts and when they’re leading them astray in rational thought.
I think simply achieving material flourishing isn’t enough to make people moral, mainly because there are other instincts at play. For example the desire for status and power. This is what drives people to immorality even during material satisfaction. I also believe it is the main driving force behind capitalism.
In my opinion, the main purpose behind law and punishment is deterrence from immoral actions.
There’s an element of that. Also, the idea that certain people need to be separated from general society as a precautionary measure. But I think there’s also a broad concept of social justice. 2nd degree murder is a good example. Nobody really expects murder charges to prevent people from going into a killing rage. And there’s no way to undo the damage inflicted. So punishment is intended as a kind of social vengeance, intended both to shame the perpetrator and to alleviate the desire of the victims to pursue their own vigilante justice.
I think simply achieving material flourishing isn’t enough to make people moral, mainly because there are other instincts at play.
I wouldn’t say it is sufficient, but I would say it is necessary. A great deal of crime is the consequence of anxiety, in one form or another. Relieving the anxiety reduces instances of crime.
Sure, there are other instincts at work. But defusing these tensions will also require infrastructure, energy, and manpower. And so you can establish a virtuous cycle, wherein a professional class of social workers with the means and methods to deliver aid also become a vehicle of economic activity that reduces poverty and contributes to the benefit of the community.
Where did you get the idea that this was supposed to be ML or exclusive to any specific leftist ideology for that matter? /gen
I feel like i’m missing context for this comment
It wasn’t really meant to be, my opinion is that following the law for its own sake is a form of slave morality and a betrayal of one’s own moral principles, but I guess the meme is vague enough to be interpreted any which way.
People don’t follow the law “for it’s own sake”. They have material reasons for supporting or transgressing, which they rationalize after the fact.
Sometimes it’s practical (driving the speed limit or not based on flow of traffic) and sometimes it’s formative (being hyper sensitive to street crime because you’ve got a memory of being robbed / reflectively shoplifting because you grew up food insecure). Maybe you’re the victim of abuse or just OCD.
But there are broad social, historical, and economic reasons to support/oppose a given legal code.
I think that in an ideal society, everyone would follow their own moral values and laws wouldn’t even be needed. That’s probably not achievable, but we can at least try to approach it.
I think the root of immorality is the prescriptive morality which is commonplace today. People only act pseudo-moral because either:
in reality, very few actually have internal moral values. As soon as those reasons disappear, they see no reason not to act immorally. Alternatively, they follow this imposed morality so strictly, that they don’t notice when it leads them to immoral actions (take for example religious fundamentalism or fascist regimes).
The solution is of course education, but our current education systems are terribly suited to producing moral people.
Morals don’t come ex nihilo. People develop them from social interactions and survival patterns, typically at a young age. The broad purpose of law is to set a publicly recognized boundary for universal conduct. It isn’t to simply be mean to people, but to publicly declare what a community of people values as socially valuable.
People largely have a certain internal sense of social justice. But they have a limited capacity to engage with their neighbors from any kind of authority position. The internal morality can get twisted when you constantly see yourself as a victim and feel the urge to right some existential wrong. Portraying one group as a victim and another as an aggressor is a classic propaganda technique used to inflame hostility between neighbors and socially justify violence.
At some level, sure. But it is difficult to inoculate a public at-large from all forms of deceptive media.
At another level, the solution needs to be establishing a general level of public contentedness and satisfaction. Agitation is less effective in a social circle that isn’t under high degrees of anxiety or fearful of deprivation. So long as we have the threat of poverty and stochastic violence hanging over people’s heads, we’re going to have the material for propaganda that agitate them into tension with their neighbors.
In my opinion, the main purpose behind law and punishment is deterrence from immoral actions. Punishment for its own sake is in no way good, it’s a necessary evil to deter immoral people from committing immoral actions. If there were no immoral people, there would be no one to deter and thus no use for law.
Sure, internal morality can get twisted, but only when it’s based in instinct (self preservation, subordination to authority, etc.), and that’s what I mean when I say pseudo-morality. Rational moral principles, on the other hand, are relatively reliable, clear and consistent. The main moral frameworks (deontology, consequentialism, virtue ethics) agree on most significant scenarios, the differences are in the specificities.
The scapegoat phenomenon you mention is a great example of instinct (the ingroup-outgroup instinct), being taken advantage of for political manipulation. Education should include teaching people to recognize these instincts and when they’re leading them astray in rational thought.
I think simply achieving material flourishing isn’t enough to make people moral, mainly because there are other instincts at play. For example the desire for status and power. This is what drives people to immorality even during material satisfaction. I also believe it is the main driving force behind capitalism.
There’s an element of that. Also, the idea that certain people need to be separated from general society as a precautionary measure. But I think there’s also a broad concept of social justice. 2nd degree murder is a good example. Nobody really expects murder charges to prevent people from going into a killing rage. And there’s no way to undo the damage inflicted. So punishment is intended as a kind of social vengeance, intended both to shame the perpetrator and to alleviate the desire of the victims to pursue their own vigilante justice.
I wouldn’t say it is sufficient, but I would say it is necessary. A great deal of crime is the consequence of anxiety, in one form or another. Relieving the anxiety reduces instances of crime.
Sure, there are other instincts at work. But defusing these tensions will also require infrastructure, energy, and manpower. And so you can establish a virtuous cycle, wherein a professional class of social workers with the means and methods to deliver aid also become a vehicle of economic activity that reduces poverty and contributes to the benefit of the community.