<p>Once again, I don’t agree with the law.
And…speeding ticket…not equal to underage drinking. And you don’t see me saying I was right to be speeding (though maybe I could just claim civil disobedience, and maybe I’ll get speed limits abolished).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I didn’t realize the Constitution had drinking alcohol in the Bill of Rights.</p>
<p>No it fits into your grand scheme of obeying the law at all times (which you evidently do not do as you speed) no matter how frivolous and inane they may seem.</p>
<p>And hops_scout are you drinking right now? I do not remember mentioning the laws being in the Bill of Rights (alcohol related laws are, however, in the Constitution).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, in theory, the more people give their kids alcohol, the higher the likelihood that they are persecuted unjustly for it and that such persecution results in the law being challenged and overturned. That is, of course, both theoretical and improbable, and only put out there for argument’s sake. ;)</p>
<p>My point is, the only real reason to obey laws (other than a simplistic Kantian categorical imperative argument), is the idea of a social contract of which laws are a part. However, my reasoning as to why this justification is invalid is as follows:</p>
<p>Laws are not in and of themselves moral maxims. They are derived from other moral maxims. In a sense, they are society’s method of applying morality on a large scale. So they are only valid, only just, and only necessary to follow insofar as they accurately reflect principles of morality and justice. I assert that the drinking age as it is does not accurately apply any particular moral principles, and as such is immoral (in order to justify its infringement upon personal liberty, an argument as to its greater good must be made; if one is not, it is immoral). Therefore, as a law has no particular morality that is not derived from the principles which it enforces, and this law is derived from principles that I consider immoral, I consider the law itself immoral and unjust.</p>
<p>And since I clearly do not follow laws that I consider unjust, I do not follow it. Pretty solid argument, I think. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s a legitimate viewpoint, but it’s also inane, since I would just counter by saying “I would rather take an action in my own home that harms no one, rather than not taking it and harming no one” - which you could only take issue with by asserting that my disobeying the law is inherently immoral (addressed above), or asserting that my not following the law privately will have other, further-reaching negative consequences - causing others to not follow the law, for example.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, except that excessive speeding is provably causative of accidents, and thus causative of infringement on others’ rights to health and life, and so forth. Ergo, by moral principles alone, speeding could be shown immoral, and thus laws proscribing against it proven just.</p>
<p>That said, I speed a lot. Actually, most of the time. That’s because, in my opinion, most speed limits are set far, far too low. I drive at a safe, not excessive speed. Whether that it under or over the speed limit does not concern me so much as much as whether or not it is right for the conditions, the speed of traffic, and so forth.</p>
<p><em>edit</em> Just in case anyone misinterprets, I’m not saying I drive everywhere 20 mph over the limit, but certainly often 5-10 mph over.</p>
<p>
This statement accomplishes nothing. I obey all laws which I have no reason to disobey. There are no laws that I currently feel affect me negatively enough to disobey civilly. Unless you want to consider driving somewhat over the speed limit civil disobedience, then fine. I civilly disobey the speed limit sometimes if my interests exceed my evaluation of the risk involved. I still have a responsibility to obey the speed limit, though, just as I have a responsibility not to drink underage.</p>
<p>I did not say it negated your civil responsibility. I simpy said it made you a hypocrite (especially since you are claiming to have a moral superiority and greater intelligence over “ignorant” underage drinkers who break the law).</p>
<p>1of42,
Let me just reinforce my position on morality. I am not saying you are immoral. I believe that one his moral if he conforms to his own moral intuition. It is up to no one else to deem him moral or immoral. And this is why you and I have no argument against each other. We are both simply acting as we see appropriate. So that said…</p>
<p>
I’d say laws are society’s method of applying order and safety primarily, maybe with some lawmakers’ morality thrown in.</p>
<p>
I agree, they are not moral maxims. They are social guidelines. They are derived only partly from moral maxims, but mostly for general safety and order, I think. I mean, I think speed limits were instituted out of concern for drivers’ safety on the roads, not for the moral sake of preserving other drivers’ right to life (but maybe, I could be wrong).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yup. And this is why, as I said, you and I have nothing to argue about.</p>
<p>Excellent. I respect your evolution since your first post on this thread, which was much more like “if you disobey the law, you are being immoral”.</p>
<p>I don’t mind, and actually very much respect those who make different choices than me. Just not when they tell me mine are immoral and start looking down their noses. ;)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes I know, and I thought you would say that. I do realize you were not saying it negated my civil responsibility, I was just adding that on for the sake of argument.</p>
<p>Are you reading all of my posts, or just the ones directed to you? You have informed me of another claim I have made of which I was not aware. I think I’ve made it quite clear that I claim no moral superiority. And greater intelligence? My remark about the ignorance of these individuals was in regard to their breaking the law and abandoning their civil responsibility, which, correct me if I’m wrong, you seem to recognize.</p>
<p>
Thank you, but careful; I never said immoral =D
And my main beef, which fueled my original post, was the lack of character in today’s teenagers. (Let’s face it, we both know that kids do not drink underage because they want to civilly disobey the law. Most of them don’t think twice about the law. They simply want to conform to the actions and preferences of the rest of the ‘dead fish’.)</p>
<p>“Too many teenagers these days have no discipline, fortitude, or character, not to mention ignorance. And too many parents seem to be fine with that.”</p>
<p>Apparently, this is the result of disobeying a particular law. And laws are something you claim you always obey, hence your sense of superiority. I do not have to go to Alaska to know it is cold.</p>
<p>“My remark about the ignorance of these individuals was in regard to their breaking the law and abandoning their civil responsibility,”</p>
<p>I recognize the law. I am aware of the law. I still break it.</p>
<p>
I thought we already covered this.</p>
<p>And I recognize your choice to break it. As I said to 1of42, you have your preference, I have mine. Neither of us is “immoral” for our choice.</p>
<p>I’m going to bed now. Good discussion.</p>
<p>Et toi…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, in some places it is easier to get UAD tickets dropped than speeding tickets.</p>
<p>“Actually, in some places it is easier to get UAD tickets dropped than speeding tickets”
Not in PA - my son has several friends who LOST their drivers licenses due to UAD - and one of them wasn’t even drinking! (being present with UADrinkers is enough to get a charge). Some schools and courts are very tough on this.</p>
<p>Actually, in some places it is easier to get UAD tickets dropped than speeding tickets"</p>
<p>I wouldn’t know- I did try and get a speeding ticket dropped about 10 years ago- that I received in a speed trap ( and then watched the officer pull over a line of cars), but that didn’t work.
However- I have never received a ticket for driving under the influence of anything- although I was pulled over after a party when I was 17 shortly after my dad died ( I wasn’t drunk), but the officer just told me to go home ( this was in a small suburb and her recognized me- don’t tell but I was actually on my way to another party- yes I was dumb-very but then he should have at least followed me IMO)</p>
<p>Hm, I just realized that since I moved to the “city” 26 years ago, I might have gotten a ticket reduced slightly, but when I lived in the burbs, all I had to do was look innocent and they would put their pad away.
So is it that I live in the big bad city and the cops don’t know me or is that I am older and not as cute as I used to be? 
</p>
<p>( I also am a better driver than I used to be- but I have to be- there is way more traffic)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And I wonder what the government would say about you blatently breaking the law… sounds like a good reason to revoke a student visa…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Don’t know, don’t particularly care. Will deal with that if and when it becomes a problem. (Though you should note I never said I was doing the smoking in America anywhere… for all you know I could be making a general point, and I could be breaking the laws in France)</p>
<p>Nice ad hominem attack, by the way. Maybe next time you can substitute an argument instead of it.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That sucks. I know plenty of people (myself included) who have been cited for UAD and as long as they get a lawyer the tickets usually get dropped. Worst case scenario is usually a fine or maybe (rarely) some community service.</p>