<p>Hunt–I found Jurisprudence fascinating in law school. I guess I tend to think of obeying the law as aspirational and normally prudent. I see a slippery slope to forgetting to stress to a child the need to accept the punishment if you are intentionally going to violate a law, whether you view the law as trivial or not.</p>
<p>lake42ks–when Serri Finkbine (Miss Sherri on *Romper Room *in Arizona) could not get a legal abortion in the US in 1962 and went to Sweden and got a legal one there, this fact hit the papers and many argued (to no avail) that she should have been prosecuted for violating American laws.</p>
No, and the drinking age laws are state laws, anyway. As somebody noted, you can legally visit a prostitute in some parts of Nevada, no matter what the law is in your home state.</p>
<p>There are some federal laws that you could violate when you are out of the country, though.</p>
<p>None of my three sons have had fakes because they were all concerned that they could not pass for 21 and would therefore risk getting caught. I think when people feel they have too much to lose they are less inclined to push the limits. However all three have been drinking since their freshman year of college. My daughter on the other hand had wanted a fake because all of her friends and boyfriend were already of the majority. It was difficult to go anywhere with him or her friends. I do not know if she ever got it, but she too was concerned about getting caught, and having the police involved.</p>
<p>I think the current drinking age is rediculous, but the point is that getting caught can hold some serious consequences for underage kids. Do I think this is the type of stuff that police should pay attention to…NO. But it is the law, and that is something not to mess around with.</p>
<p>Those who say doing a harmless moral act that breaks a law is immoral (purely because it violates a law), are either in denial or must that this view is seriously conflicted and flawed. The reasons are simple.</p>
<p>To view a violation of law as an immoral act itself is in a sense a show of blind respect for the lawmakers ability to keep legality aligned with morality. Clearly, if it was illegal to smile, it would be hard to respect the lawmakers and their morality. Some people, who happen to have no major issue with laws, choose to work hard and follow all laws (or so they convince themselves) to achieve some sense of self-worth through legal purity.</p>
<p>The paradox appears when, as others have mentioned, it is legal to do immoral acts. Tying your morality to legality is quite dangerous. For example, I’ve known people like this, who when visiting a certain european country, would do drugs for the first time in their life, even though they seems to be morally against them before. The prostitution example in the US is also valid. Tying your morality to legality is almost no different to having no internal morality at all – to let others dictate your morality. There is hardly any better way to become a mindless follower.</p>
<p>The paradox is further complicated, when these “100% law abiding citizens” learn of laws they were never aware of, like it being illegal to go to church without carrying a rifle in Massachusetts. These people are then faced with the decision to either admit that all laws are not black-and-white and in fact some should be violated, or to continue down a dangerous road of submitting your entire moral system to some clearly silly laws.</p>
<p>Note that I am not saying that it is impossible to maintain your morals and suck up and follow all laws at the same time, just that the general attitude of black-and-white “illegality = immorality” in every case I’ve ever seen or heard of has involved compromised integrity of one’s internal moral system.</p>
<p>Certain forms of gambling are legal in some states and not in others. Lousiana and Oklahoma casino interests come to lobby in Texas all the time to keep most forms of gambling illegal in Texas to insure that those out of state casinos on the border continue to thrive.</p>
<p>Ah, the Wonder Years! Massive increase in the number of federal crimes, mandatory sentencing quidelines in federal cases and federal economic coercion on social issues.</p>
<p>NotBlue, I think the fallacy in your argument is assuming that law is designed to prevent immoral behavior. That’s not really the point of a lot of laws. Part of the point of the law is to regulate collective behavior. For example, there’s no moral dimension to whether we should drive on the left hand or right hand side of the road–but it’s obvious why we need a law to tell us which side to drive on.</p>
<p>Here’s an example–it’s required by law to stop at a red light. We can all understand why we have such a law. But you’re driving out in the middle of nowhere, and you come to a red light. You can see that there are no cars for miles around. Is it moral to go through that red light? The only reason it might be immoral is that it’s against the law to run red lights. I think plenty of people would say that it’s still wrong to run that red light.</p>
<p>But what if you become convinced that the light is broken and isn’t going to change?</p>
<p>I suppose you could turn right on red, do a U-turn, and then turn right again.</p>
<p>But I suspect–and I’m not really joking–that almost everybody would eventually go through the red light if they were convinced it wasn’t working. How long they wait might be a measure of how they feel about the morality of obedience to the law.</p>
<p>For our student members who fully understand state vs federal laws and the importance of states rights, however are too young to remember…</p>
<p>On July 17, 1984, President Reagan signed into law the Uniform Drinking Age Act mandating all states to adopt 21 as the legal drinking age within five years. By 1988, all states had set 21 as the minimum drinking age. Prior to this state laws ranged during the 70’s and 80’s from 18-21 from state to state creating ‘blood borders’. They were called blood borders because teens would drive across state lines, drink and then drive back home across state lines killing and injuring themselves and others.</p>
<p>Even if you do not agree with the law currently in place, having it vary from state to state was a recipe for disaster. I know. President Reagen knew. He lived miles from one. Students from Virginia would drive across the Key bridge into Georgetown either to bar hop or purchase from liquor stores and come back across the state line. If the law is ever changed, I sincerely hope this would be remembered and that the age be universal across the US.</p>
<p>I crossed posts with 07DAD… I respectfully disagree that the UDAA was economic in nature, however that is a debate that could go on forever. Can I agree to disagree?</p>
Ultimately all legality is based on a sort of morality, if we can agree that a non-flawed (“good”) morality is defined as one pursuing the actions in each individual that results in the collective well-being and advancement of a society as a whole. As in game theory, morality cannot be independently determined, since it relies heavily on your interaction with others as well.</p>
<p>So keep in mind I am not referring necessarily to any typical loose definition of “morality” (which in some societies allows horrible things) but rather what I believe we’re all referring to here – rationally “good” morality – which is the general idea of being a good citizen.</p>
<p>With that said, your point of driving on the right/left side of the road only shows that it is our moral responsibility to choose as a whole society which side to drive on, and communicate to each other on the consensus. To drive on the other side of the arbitrarily chosen one would then be clearly immoral due to the danger caused.</p>
<p>The idea here is that in so far as a responsibility to behave for the better of your society is an inherent part of morality, all legal regulation is also inherently tied to this morality.</p>
<p>If you’re on a clearly empty road and you come to a stop-light, and you are 100% sure it is safe to proceed without stopping, then it is not immoral to do so. This hypothetical situation, however, is one that will never happen in real life. Highways are a very tricky and dangerous thing, and any one driver who’s not completely mentally ■■■■■■■■ will know that the odds of causing an accident are increased drastically if they do not stop at stop-lights even in an apparently safe case. It would be immoral to put others in this much increased danger by a judgement you know could be flawed.</p>
<p>The idea here is that, yes, laws are designed to regulate society towards a good cause – and that in most cases, we should follow these laws because more thought went into them than we realize. So if we are to choose to break or bend a law because our own morals dictate so, then we’d better be ABSOLUTELY sure this is a good decision (in other words, doesn’t downgrade your society).</p>
<p>About the broken red light, I assume you’re joking. It would be immoral to NOT proceed and hold up traffic, but of course only if you’re ABSOLUTELY sure it is in fact broken and safe to cross (and you also evaluate that it is not more safe to turn around and find another rout).</p>
<p>The morality system of the murderer or thief is destructive to their society (and therefore flawed), as is the case for the stop-light-runner, prostitute (even if not illegal), etc. The morality system of an 18 year old who drinks responsibly, is not destructive to society in any way.</p>
<p>Again, I admit to making a pretty big assumption here: That the goal of a non-flawed moral system is to pursue actions as an individual that best result in the betterment of society as a whole, which of course involves collaboration with others.</p>
<p>It all seemed so simple…don’t break the law or teach your kids that it’s ok to do so. </p>
<p>But after reading round and round and round this crazy thread…I am convinced that there are folks out there who could convince me otherwise.</p>
<p>However, I’ll side with good old Teddy on this one:</p>
<p>“No man is above the law and no man is below it; nor do we ask any man’s permission when we ask him to obey it. Obedience to the law is demanded as a right; not asked as a favor.” -Theodore Roosevelt</p>
<p>shellz- We can set examples, teach, lecture…whatever…but there is no guarantee our young adult children will do what we would do or what we would like for them to do. They make their own decisions, and it always amuses me on these forums how many parents think they can control what their 20 somethings do.</p>
<p>Are you saying we are morally obligated to follow all laws? If so, then don’t ever plan on skipping a bath before bed in Massachusetts, because that would be illegal.</p>
<p>At this point, anyone claiming “It’s simple… just don’t break laws.” runs the risk of being accused an internet ■■■■■. I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now though and give you a chance to explain.</p>
<p>Frankly, unless you can prove why all laws must be followed, including silly ones, you have to admit that some laws can and should be disregarded or bent. Once you’ve established your position here, re-read some of the posts and you’ll get a better picture of the situation of what laws we are morally obliged to uphold and which laws we are certainly not, and why this is true.</p>
<p>Again, if you adhere to a strict “illegality = immorality” view, you will have to deal with following silly laws, and what it means when laws allow incest marriage in some states, legal prostitution, etc. The argument here is asserting that you cannot rationally deal with these without conceding that it is ok to cross certain laws. If you think otherwise, you’re going to have to prove it to us here or remain silent.</p>
<p>MoWC…
My “teaching” was done by the early teen years. From there I moved on to “consultant” mode. And now, thankfully, we are in mentor/friend mode. If you put the time in when your kids are young, teaching values and setting boundaries, the teen and young adult years are pretty darn nice. Occasional bumps in the road do happen, but we’ve been blessed thus far with great young adult kids who have not given us much to worry about. </p>
<p>BTW, I would never tell my 20 y/o what to do, but if asked I will advise. It’s his life, and if he wants to throw it all away (security clearance is required in his current and future career), then that is his choice and he will have to deal with the consequences.</p>
<p>Call me a ■■■■■ if you must, but you are really reaching here. I never claimed to be perfect, and gasp…I’ve broken speeding laws on occasion. I do, however, aim to be a good, law abiding citizen. Perfect? No. Close? I’d like to think so, but my husband might beg to differ. ;-)</p>
<p>Here is the difference between you and I, as I see it…I accept the fact that there are laws meant to protect the citizenry and, although arbitrary, the age of majority is 21. I am ok with this law, even if I personally think my 20 y/o could responsibly handle the right to drink. Some of his friends however give me HUGE pause… The human brain isn’t fully developed until around age 25, so delaying (or attempting to delay) alcohol consumption by teens is a good thing, in my book. As such, I will follow this law, and teach my young children that they are expected to follow it as well. </p>
<p>As for laws on personal hygiene in MA, you got me. It is stupid. However, I am not gonna throw the baby out with the bathwater (lol). Just because arcane laws, written a hundred plus years ago, are still on the books does NOT take away from those laws which serve some logical purpose. While I AGREE (see, I am not totally unreasonable that the drinking age should be 18, it’s currently not. </p>
<p>If you don’t like the law, work to change it.</p>
<p>That is so much easier said than done. Once a law is enacted, two things tend to keep it on the books regardless of its wisdom or public sentiment:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Any politician voting to repeal the law knows that he or she will be aggressively targeted by some group, even if a small minority, that wishes for it to remain as-is.</p></li>
<li><p>Too many citizens are too sheepish to care. Even if 80% of citizens wish for a change in the law—take medical marijuana, for example—it is unlikely that a sufficiently large portion of them will take the required action to force the change.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>In my heart I think people just want to be ruled rather than to govern themselves. It’s too much work. Just tell me what to do, and I’ll do it. Problem solved.</p>
Good. So we’ve established that you agree that some laws are arcane and stupid, and people should not be obligated to follow them.</p>
<p>That’s really all we need to agree on here. The actual debate on what’s the best age to start drinking is tricky in it’s own sense, and probably should be saved for another thread.</p>
<p>You agree the some of the silly example laws given are wrong, and we can definitely cross them. You agree the drinking age at 21 as opposed to 18 is wrong, but that we should not cross this law.</p>
<p>This is fine if you choose to believe this, but I believe it can be rationally argued that college students drinking in many cases is no more severe (possibly less, depending on how you look at it) than going 5 MPH over the speed limit. But I will save the actual reasons for another thread dedicated to this subject.</p>
<p>Maybe. Maybe not. I know a lot of families who did just what you are stating and wound up with young adults who have serious problems- much worse than using a fake ID or drinking underage. You can do your best as a parent, but there are NO guarantees.</p>
<p>No one seems to mention that 21 has been “the age” for legal drinking with rare exception since the end of Prohibition, except for about 10-12 years in the 1970s-80s.</p>
that the drinking age should be 18, it’s currently not. </p>