Illegal=Immoral

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 10 2004, 01:47 PM'] You don't get to pick and choose what bits of natural law you get to use. It comes all as a package. [/quote]
Not arguing natural law, here. I don't agree with the concept.

[qfnol31]

[quote name='Sojourner' date='Dec 10 2004, 02:56 PM'] If you're going to drive the speed limit no matter what ... I just am not willing to endanger my life for an arbitrary law. [/quote]
Ahh, but it's not actually just an arbitrary law. My moral theology professor gave an argument why it and the drinking age laws are not arbitrary.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:11 PM'] Ahh, but it's not actually just an arbitrary law. My moral theology professor gave an argument why it and the drinking age laws are not arbitrary. [/quote]
I'd love to hear it.

I might not get to read it until next week, though, as I'm out for the weekend.

[burnsspivey]

[quote name='thessalonian' date='Dec 10 2004, 01:36 PM'] Yes, relativism is rampant around this country. And everyone seems to want to believe there are no absolute truths. But then they fail to realize that statement in and of itself is "an absolute truth", though a false one. One may beilve that if he drives his chevy impala 80 miles per hour in to a wall that he won't get hurt. He certainly may believe that but the consequences will not be lessoned because of his false belief. Our laws and our objectives in influencing them as individuals must consider proper morality of which God says it is implanted on all men's hearts such that none has an excuse in Romans 2:15. [/quote]
You can't avoid relativism when you have people of different faiths living together. Even different sects of christianity disagree on many, many things and just because you hold one above the others doesn't mean that everyone else does. This kind of thinking is the height of egocentrism. Frankly, I can handle the cognitive dissonance of saying that there are no absolutes. Then again, I don't say that -- the only constant is change, the eternal absolute. Your analogy is a false one because the belief offers immediate, concrete proof of its falsity, whereas moral beliefs do not. Our laws should not be influence by any particular religion or the rest of the religions, and the followers thereof, suffer.

[quote]Going against God's laws is no less consequential than going against the physical laws of nature.[/quote]

So you are free to believe, when you can offer concrete proof of such, let me know.

[qfnol31]

The argument is pretty much they didn't just choose a number to make the speed limit, but deliberated on it. Had they just chosen a number, then it would be wrong. But here, whether we disagree or not, they did research.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='qfnol31' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:18 PM'] The argument is pretty much they didn't just choose a number to make the speed limit, but deliberated on it. Had they just chosen a number, then it would be wrong. But here, whether we disagree or not, they did research. [/quote]
I can perhaps see applying that to speed limits ... but drinking ages? Especially since other countries have drinking ages so far below ours. Or a smoking age.

[Sojourner]

For that matter, speed limits in similar sections of the street can vary greatly from town to town, or even within cities.

[qfnol31]

I think they're both fair. Just because another country is different does not mean it shouldn't be the rule here. Look at it this way, it's legal in most states (or at least many) for the children to drink with their parents present. However, most parents and children do not drink wine. Why is our age limit different? Because it wouldn't do any good to lower it. In other countries, the children grow up drinking wine. We must look at culture. Some things are different in different cultures.

[Don John of Austria]

many speedlimits are set only to earn money for the town/city. Is that just?

[Guest Aluigi]

if the law doesn't cause you to do something wrong, you should follow it. it's a matter of obedience.

[BullnaChinaShop]

Even if speend limits are not arbitrarily set they are very often arbitrarily enforced. I will quit driving over the speed limit when they set the limit where they intend to enforce it and take away the grey area that currently exists.

[Sojourner]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' date='Dec 10 2004, 04:35 PM'] Even if speend limits are not arbitrarily set they are very often arbitrarily enforced. I will quit driving over the speed limit when they set the limit where they intend to enforce it and take away the grey area that currently exists. [/quote]
Yeah, what he said.

[homeschoolmom]

yeah, what she said...

[Don John of Austria]

risking peoples lives for no morally compelling reason is wrong.

[Guest Aluigi]

oh well i was contending with underage drinking more i guess. the speed limit thing can have reasons. however, when those reasons don't apply you must follow the speed limit. if you're on the highway and keeping up with traffic so as not to risk lives, good. if you're just on a random road that has 25mph as the speed limit and you're going 40 (and there's no morally compelling reason such as a health emergency or conditions that would make following 25 unsafe) then you are sinning. "speeding" isn't the sin: the sin is disobedience. underage drinking- i can see no situation that NOT drinking underage is wrong. i don't agree with the law, but I follow it to teach myself humility and obedience, as should all underage Catholics.

[InHisHands381]

It seems to me that we should follow the law as long as we are not endangering our lives or anyone elses lives (or even just harming others for that matter). The laws are there for a reason (although sometimes not the best reason) and should be followed accordingly. However, if, for instance, the government passed a law saying that you must do something that impedes upon morality and/or endangers lives, THEN you can break the law. I like the example Winchester used of standing in front of abortion clinics. Yes, it is against the law, but the law is allowing thousands and thousands of people to be murdered. Is it wrong to try to help prevent those murders?

To quote the CCC:
[quote]1903 Authority is exercised ligitamtely only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. [b]If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience.[/b] In such a case, "authority breaks down completely and results in shameful abuse."[/quote]

[Don John of Austria]

As I said before the Civil authority only has justiction over certian things, Somethings are within the Juristiction of the Church and others are the Juristiction of your Parents. I believe drinking when you are underage falls into the latter catagory when you are not on public property and in the first when you are on Public property. Your Parants can give you general permission to drink and the State doe not have the Authority to forbid it when you are within a private resedence, more than that is the State overstepping its Authority and edging into Tyranny. That alone is unjust and makes any such law an Unjust Law. That does not in anyway restrict the government from making laws that govern your state while in a public place or restricting commerce ( such as purchasing alcohol).

[Guest JeffCR07]

Don John, it seems to me that you are correct with regards to the heirarchy within the Order of Authority, however, I have not come to quite the same conclusions that you have.

With the Order of Authority, the Church is top, immediately followed by parents and family, and then civil authorities. Thus, if the Church commands you to do something that is contrary to the orders of your parents, family, or civil law, you must do it (provided it is, of course, a just order).

However it seems to me that one need not make the stark territorial seperation of authority that you did in your above post in order to uphold the Order of Authority. In fact, it seems to me that your system has some inherent flaws. To illustrate one such flaw, allow me to use an example:

A man has entered your house and killed your wife and children while you sleep. You wake up to find you loved ones already murdered, but the murderer is still in the house. He has left his gun in another room and you take it. So it is you with the murder's gun and the murder at your mercy. Seeing he is without a weapon, he makes no attack on you and pleads for you to spare his life.

It could easily be argued that the death penalty may very well be justly inflicted by you upon the murderer. However, civil law prevents this, and you are morally obligated to call the police and have the man arrested. You do.


The reason I use this example is not to get into a debate of specifics about the case, but simply to provide an example (admittedly flawed) of a situation in which the Civil Authority's right to legislate does not end at one's doorstep.


Now, having shown what I feel could be a legitimate critique on your argument, I will provide a similar, albeit slightly different, system that we will see (hopefully) adequately addresses the issue of legislative jurisdiction with regards to the moral order of authority:

As we have previously said, within the Order of Authority, the Church foremost, but also parents and, more broadly, family, supercede civil law. Thus, if any one directly contradicts another (assuming both of the contradicting orders are just), then an individual is morally obligated to follow the order or decree from the source in a higher position of authority. Thus, one is obligated to follow a just decree of the Church above all else, a just decree of one's parents above all but the Church, etc.

However, I maintain that one must "choose" only when dealing with [i]positive decrees[/i]. By this, I mean that if one's parents directly order (positively decree) him/her to have a glass of wine on thanksgiving dinner or a glass of champagne on New Year's Eve, deeming it as being innappropriate if you did not, and this positive decree of one's parents directly conflicts with a positive decree of the civil authority, such as directly saying that persons under the age of 21 cannot drink alcoholic beverages, then one must obey his or her parents.

However, if one is not dealing with positive decrees, then it seems that there need be no conflict, for all parties can be satisfied. Thus, if one's parents maintain that they will allow their child to drink under age within their household, but do not demand it, then the child is in a position in which he/she can still choose to obey the civil authority and thus shows proper respect to the heirarchy of the Order of Authority as a whole.

This, it seems to me, is a fitting thing for us as catholics, for it shows the proper respect for all in authority above us, and, though at times it may be inconvenient, such inconvenience provides us with an opportunity to offer our struggles up to be united with the sufferings of Christ, and for us to grow in patience and Christian Humility.


*Side Note* The above idea is assuming that all orders and decrees in question are just and do not oppose the moral law, cause one or others to sin, or enganger the lives of oneself or others. In any of these cases, one would be morally obligated not to follow such an order.

- Your Brother In Christ, Jeff

[qfnol31]

[quote name='BullnaChinaShop' date='Dec 10 2004, 03:35 PM'] Even if speend limits are not arbitrarily set they are very often arbitrarily enforced. I will quit driving over the speed limit when they set the limit where they intend to enforce it and take away the grey area that currently exists. [/quote]
If your argument is true, there are many things I can do. If they don't enforce it, that does not make it right. They don't always enforce the drinking-age law. Believe me, it's unjust for someone under that to follow it.

Look at it this way. My parents tell me not to do something. If I don't listen, but they don't care, that doesn't mean I'm not sinning. It just adds evil to their actions, not mine.

Now, if a law is commonly held as unjust or treated as non-existent by [b][i]ALL[/i][/b], then it is okay for you to break it. Chances are, this is never the case.

[Winchester]

I'm aware the argument can be used to promote things with which I might not agree. My point stands; save the elementary lessons.


I shall repeat, since humans are imperfect, we may reason the intent behind a law.

The intent behind most traffic laws is safety. We stop at stop at stop signs not because it's objectively dangerous to slow down, but becasu it's better if people stop completely. It's not immoral to roll and go a clear intersection, for instance. It is illegal and if you get busted, you deserve it.

The problem with speeding is line of sight and merging vehicles--including the guys who aren't looking the quarter mile it takes to see you if you're blowing by them at 20mph above their speed. Speeding takes a degree of skill and frankly, most people don't have it, even within reasonable levels. Tailgating and changing lanes without looking are far more dangerous than simple speeding.

Underage drinking is probably a little influenced by our culture, but it's not some human absolute. I plan on teaching my daughter how todrink properly. If tomorrow the government came out and said no one under eighteen, even with parental permission, could drink, i would break the law at some point in the future, I assure you.