About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unread


Post 0

Wednesday, January 16 - 11:51amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
     I think much of this attitude in movies and 'news' periodicals has to do with media avoiding (to the point of bending over backwards) sympathizing with 'outlaws' of almost any kind, anywhere; ie: an 'outlaw' is definitionally equivalent to Bonnie&Clyde, or Al Capone. Ergo, all burglars (unless clearly 'stealing' from a crime syndicate), smugglers, etc are not to be sympathized with.

     Another factor, methinks, has to do with an acceptance of the idea that any 'official' law by a recognized country, if ignored or broken by its citizens or non-, make the breaker an immoral/unethical person as well. --- As an aside, this seems to me to be why so many also favor a 'world court' run by the U.N.

LLAP
J:D




Post 1

Wednesday, January 16 - 12:32pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
But of course those escaping were the main outlaws! And the movie treated them like heroes!  I believe the culprit for the movie makers is the usual suspect, money making!



Post 2

Wednesday, January 16 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
And the "coyotes" who risk life and limb smuggling people into the U.S.?

Or, the drug smugglers who face death or long imprisonment for braving satisfying their customers?

http://www.reason.com/blog/show/124439.html

Note that the "Prince of Pot" cited in the Reason article above was interviewed in depth recently on NPR's "As It Happens."  According to him, the only reason that he willingly accepted the five year sentence from U.S. authorities for actions taken solely on Canadian soil was that one of his co-defendants had a medical condition that would have been terminal if she had gone to prison herself.  So he cut a deal to protect her. 




Post 3

Thursday, January 17 - 1:19pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
     My point was regarding the idea of how 'law'-breakers are seen. They're ipso facto seen as automatically immoral merely because they've broken an official 'law' of some 'sovereignly'-ruled area.

    To be contextually specific here, some smugglers are as evil as one can be, whilst others are as moral as one can be. But, if they broke some 'law' somewhere, all are regarded as paintable by the same brush of moral-contempt...especially by media. Can't give 'moral support/sanction' to obvious criminals, right?

LLAP
J:D




Post 4

Thursday, January 17 - 1:43pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Illegality is only 'immoral' in a theocratic society, where the one is the same...
but the implications of that still hold today in secular societies, due to the all-pervasiveness of the way things used to be for most of human history - and still is in Islamic societies....




Post 5

Thursday, January 17 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
R-M:

     1st time I find I disagree with you.

     In a 'theocratic' society, illegality is immoral...'officially'...for sure; however, I'm not talking about such theo-bureaucratic decision-makers in what I said. I was talking about the 'media' pronouncers (a la the novel/movie 'V', whether govt-'controlled' [as Nazi Germany] or not), and, all the sheep-followers of such.

LLAP
J:D




Post 6

Thursday, January 17 - 8:36pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ahh - but those ARE theocratic societies, even if their 'theos' not be other than an earthly almighty...;-)



Post 7

Friday, January 18 - 6:09amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"Illegality is only 'immoral' in a theocratic society, where the one is the same... "

Um, doesn't Objectivism hold that both the initiation of force and the use of fraud are immoral and therefore should be illegal?

Or am I confused?



Post 8

Friday, January 18 - 10:30amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
RM:

     Hmmm...I see what you mean, but, I think that's stretching the 'theo-' part a bit. I regard the rubric you're using as meaning 'dictatorship', of which a theocracy is only one form. --- Still, faith in a Fuhrer is...faith.

LLAP
J:D




Post 9

Sunday, January 20 - 2:12amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Not be an ass, but is someone going to answer my question?

Is there a difference between saying:

"Breaking the law is immoral" and "Morality should dictate the law"?



Post 10

Sunday, January 20 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
The relationship between morality and law is a very old topic and no quick response is possible.  A very good effort is made by Douglas J. Den Uyl and Douglas B. Rasmussen, Norms of Liberty (Penn State Press, 2006). Basically they argue that morality requires us to support certain meta-norms, norms that provide the framework for acting morally but are not themselves moral edicts. These norms include the right to life, liberty, property, etc. In more familiar terms, the law itself is not the same as ethics or morality but has its grounding in certain moral aspects of human community life. If it lacks these features, it isn't valid law but merely the command to those who happen to rule.



Post 11

Sunday, January 20 - 10:32amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Mr. Machan,

Thanks so much for the direction.

I'm finding myself in an odd place re: the law and morality, is all.

Apologies to all for the harsh tone.



Post 12

Monday, January 21 - 1:41pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Tibor,

I haven't seen the movie, but it sounds as if it fits the cynical pattern of always looking in our culture for a flaw, for feet of clay. So as not to be thought of as a "sentimentalist".

And, going further than suspecting the worst of (or writing only about the worst among) the smugglers, it fits in with the lack of respectful attention given to those who resist or have resisted a dictatorship at great risk and cost. One of the most inspiring books I ever read (and an example of great writing) was the true story of the Hungarian Revolution and the heroic people who emerged from all walks of life, risking everything. Parents defying the informers and risking slave labor camps by systematically undoing what the schools had done and teaching their children 'counter-revolutionary' ideas about freedom late at night at home for years prior to the revolt. Young adolescents fighting heavily-armored tanks with their bare hands and "Molotov cocktails".

It was pieced together after the fact by the famed writer James Michener acting as journalist, not a best-selling fiction writer this time: "The Bridge at Andau". (I taught it to my literature and composition class this past year.)

The title comes from a tiny footbridge over a swamp near the Austrian border, which happened to be a chokepoint across which hundreds of thousands of Hungarian freedom fighters and other refugees fled as the revolution was crushed. And where the world press, including a world famous author gathered to interview them (and in Michener's case, to help some of the weaker one across the bridge and past the barbed wire and dogs and guns.) Michener's words:

"It was about the most inconsequential bridge in Europe, but by an accident of history it became, for a few flaming weeks, one of the most important bridges in the world, for across its unsteady planks fled the soul of a nation."

Moving and powerful writing to a fourteen-year old mind.

And to the adult mind those words played a part in molding, they echo still.




(Edited by Philip Coates on 1/21, 2:04pm)




Post to this thread
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.