That is an extremely interesting philosophy. So how does this work? If I don't like somebody and shoots him, I can challenge the notion of manslaughter/murder in court?
So for example if your superiors, some official from some agency, or the President, asks you to torture suspects, or to monitor the private conversations of every citizen, or to keep so-called "National Security Letters" secret, and they say you have to do it "because it's the law", you can either hide behind authority or try and think for yourself.
It doesn't mean you have to break every law; when thinking for yourself you may arrive at the same conclusion as the legislator, that torturing suspects is indispensable to get the information you need, for example, and that, in your opinion, there is no better option.
But it does mean you lose the excuse of doing something morally objectionable just because someone told you to do it; from that moment on, you do it because you want to.
The reason you don't go around shooting people should be because you find killing human beings repellent, not because you fear getting caught.
Remeber this? http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405274870411730... >>Google Defies China on Web. Search Giant Stops Censoring Its Results
Did you know the excuse "I was just following orders" is no longer a valid defense 100% of the time? That means you need to consider sometimes not following rules/orders if it seems unethical.
Also, if you're protesting something you believe is unethical there can be situations[1] that breaking the law on purpose brings about progress. I think Google alm
1. http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/11/jackson-ms-sit-in.jpg
____
P.S. I don't understand how anyone doesn't already know this. The law is not absolute. You don't just follow it unquestionably & unthinkingly. There are countless examples of people breaking laws that are unethical to bring about progress in a society. I suspect you're just trolling.
As quoted from parent.
So if I ask the OP to explain, that is trolling? What do you define as discussion?
And my question still remains, who decides what is good or bad?
Do you understand what this picture is? http://radgeek.com/gt/2008/11/jackson-ms-sit-in.jpg
Do you understand the good that comes from Google disabling censorship in China even though it was not lawful under Chinese law to do so?
I'm not going to get into some silly pedantic debate about who gets to decide right & wrong. If you don't undestand those 2 examples and what the OP is saying, then ....good luck to you.
1. Not always means that you have to make a decision, the question is on what principle do you decide to challenge a law in court, and why that principle will be superior than somebody else principles.
2. I did not discuss this with you at all, I am asking bambax, so if you want to jump into a discussion, and suddenly decides to throw a tantrum, good luck to you.
3. Google censorship or radgeek does not add to this discussion, all I want to know is what makes bambax decide when to challenge the law and on what principle.
But you're welcome to challenge both in the courts of justice and public opinion.