At 02:27 PM 7/25/96 -0400, hallam@Etna.ai.mit.edu wrote:
The moral point is not that there is risk of being caught, it is that society has made laws and unless there are exceptional circumstances it is a duty to obey those laws.
I haven't seen society making laws recently; I've seen societies tolerating governments and governments making laws, generally to benefit one special interest or another, and I include bureaucratic growth and self-preservation as special interests. I don't see how duty attaches to any of that. Duty attaches to keeping committments you've made to other people and living up to your moral values, and in spite of government telling me I've got a duty to it, I don't. Meanwhile, society is a bunch of individuals and the interactions they have with each other. If you want society to work well, there are lots of things you can and should do to help - but duties are to individuals. Letting other people live their lives in peace may count as a duty - and if it does, then governments have the duty not to make laws unless there are exceptional circumstances. The facts that people can lose money gambling or get stoned by taking drugs or make money by helping other people do these things are certainly not exceptional...
I don't argue against breaking laws which are immoral, indeed I am still refusing to pay a Poll tax bill from the UK despite the fact that the amount outstanding is inconsequential.
Why? Aside from the fact that Maggie and the Parliament were quite obnoxious in enacting and implementing it, what's wrong? If you're think that some people's Fair Share of the cost of supporting society is higher than others', and object because this tax