Not really. Because my argument is not “you should not have to follow the laws of society if you don’t feel like it”, but rather, something like, “if the overall good is better served by disobeying any particular unjust law, then it should not be applied blindly, we can, and should, as a society, decide not to apply it, and there’s no moral failing in someone who breaks it”. It is not, and never has been, “anyone can perform any act he chooses and then tells him if it was wrong.” There are things that are against the law, and, if we realize we made a mistake in the law, we can overrule that, through a number of means, including deciding not to apply that particular law anymore. Whereas yours seems to be, “It’s never okay to break the law, and even if the law subsequently changes, the perpetrator should still have been punished.” and “There are other ways to change the laws, civil disobedience is never appropriate.” If I’m wrong on these characterizations as you have been with ours, please correct me.
And your attempted use of Nelson Mandela STILL perplexes me, because Civil Disobedience IS exactly what happened: He broke a law, that was an unjust law, and yes, he went to jail for it… and then, in large part because of him, the law was eventually changed, and his sentence removed (because of the linear nature of time, we couldn’t undo the time he already served, but he almost certainly would have). That IS civil disobedience, and the use of civil disobedience to change the laws, of the same kind you’ve stated repeatedly you think is inappropriate. As you’ve said it, Nelson Mandela should have stayed in jail because the law was broken. And whether Washington thinks the laws apply to him don’t seem to matter either - this student had no say in the rules, and so he, just like Washington, could consider himself exempt (or that they were not his government, but his captor), but you clearly don’t think that’s appropriate.
I’m sorry, what are you referring to here? The Nazi example? That’s less ‘reductio ad absurdum’ than it is ‘reductio ad THINGS THAT CAN ACTUALLY HAPPEN’. But reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid argument technique in a reasonable discussion, if you don’t want to get into an argument based on it, perhaps that’s because your belief system falls apart under scrutiny. (Meanwhile, your insistence that our side is “nobody has to obey any laws, you’re just like the rapist terrorists!” is the inappropriate form of it, the strawman fallacy, completely mischaracterizing the opposing side because it’s easier to knock down that strawman). Unless, of course, I’m wrong that you believe you should always obey the law, and even if a law changes later, you should still be punished for the breaking of the original law while it was law. In which case, it would be a strawman, but I’m giving you the opportunity to correct that mischaracterization
So you don’t argue your system is best, you argue your system is best in the best possible type of world. Something you can’t control or count on continuing over the long term.
Anyway, I disagree, because your system, that suggests we should punish people for things that are against the law, EVEN IF THE LAW IS UNJUST, seems to have as its only additional effect to harm people who should never have been punished in the first place. Other countries don’t have this philosophy, and you don’t have a notably better standard of living than them (maybe the US, sure, but they’re not the only ones who don’t, and have a whole lot of other issues), so you get to harm people who shouldn’t have been punished in the first place, AND you don’t even get a better place to live out of it.
Whereas a system that allows civil disobedience as a means to change the law, and eventual recognition that “yeah, this was a stupid law and we should never have applied it” means people who are caught up in temporarily unjust laws (because even relatively fair societies with freedom of speech can screw up and have unjust and unfair laws for brief or sustained periods… see the laws against homosexuality, laws allowing slavery, etc) aren’t needlessly punished in ADDITION to having unjust laws thrust on them in the first place. Now, if we want to get reductio ad absurdum to a rather silly level (as opposed to “stuff that actually happens”), let’s saw Britain passed a law to the effect of “No being a Muslim.” Sure, a totally unfair law, but maybe it’s right after a huge terrorist attack, governments panic, the non-Muslim majority goes a little crazy, and the Muslim minority gets shafted. Maybe they repeal it a month later. But every Muslim in Britain broke the law, just by existing in Britain and not renouncing their lifelong faith. So… they deserve punishment for breaking the law, under your ethos, right? And now what was ONCE a stupid and totally unjust law that got repealed… is now still targeting all Muslims. Because although that law might have been repealed, the “no breaking the law” philosophy still demands they get punished. I don’t believe you actually think this way, by the way. I’m just pointing out how dangerous the philosophy is. Sure, there MIGHT be mitigating factors, if the individuals trying each individual case agree when the cases inevitably come to trial (because you said it’s wrong to change the law retroactively so there’s no punishment, we must make an example of rule breakers even for stupid rules that have no business being there)… personally, I’d rather we accept that they never should have been bound by the stupid law, that WE as a government made the mistake, not them. That seems like a more fair society.
Anyway, I’m still going to call your system less fair and worse. It leads to more harm to more people.
