(no subject)
Apr. 30th, 2002 05:45 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
johnpalmerOkay... I think the tiredness based depression has mostly lifted. It's always hard to tell; it's easy to get tired when working night shift, and I didn't get quite enough sleep yesterday. But, for the most part, I can find myself reasoning through things and deciding that they're not as gloomy as they might seem during a drop in my emotional state.
Those drops in my emotional state come from tiredness (which is always a constant struggle) and from other problems... like, feeling a sudden deep longing for a new beloved. Granted, most of the time, that quickly becomes a pleasant, warm feeling, but there are times when tiredness makes everything feel a bit gloomy.
But... I wanted to wax philosophical for a bit.
Recently, I've had a few situations where a similar idea popped up in my mind.
You run into philosophical situations where you're confronted with "doing what's right" and it's running counter to the law. My favorite example is medical marijuana. Marijuana can reduce a huge amount of suffering by people in a variety of situations. Denying it to people is wrong (by my philosophy) and providing it when necessary is right (again, by my philosophy).
But then, there's a question... does this conflict with the fact that marijuana is illegal in the US? Should a person disregard the law, or should the law be held to because it *IS* the law?
I'd pondered this for a long while, trying to find a solution to it. My answer was, "of course... you should disregard the law in this case, because it's important". Okay, but then, when should you obey a law, just because it's the law? Ever?
The answer came to me one day recently... I was pondering situations where a person is beyond the reach of the law, and trying to decide how that person should feel constrained. Well, that's one step away from being in a lawless situation, like a brand new society. And I realized then that the key to having laws in the first place is to serve people. People did not exist to serve the laws.
And suddenly, the principle to decide "obey the law, or not" was obvious... you should obey a law that is serving the people. You should not feel morally constrained by a law that is not serving the people. More importantly, if a law is harming the people, you just about have a moral imperative not to obey it. (When wouldn't you? Well, if breaking that law will indirectly cause other harm, you have to measure the harm in obediance with the harm of disobediance... but this will be based only on harm, and not on the law itself.
I suppose this isn't too terribly profound, but it tied up an aggravating loose end in my philosophical musings.
Those drops in my emotional state come from tiredness (which is always a constant struggle) and from other problems... like, feeling a sudden deep longing for a new beloved. Granted, most of the time, that quickly becomes a pleasant, warm feeling, but there are times when tiredness makes everything feel a bit gloomy.
But... I wanted to wax philosophical for a bit.
Recently, I've had a few situations where a similar idea popped up in my mind.
You run into philosophical situations where you're confronted with "doing what's right" and it's running counter to the law. My favorite example is medical marijuana. Marijuana can reduce a huge amount of suffering by people in a variety of situations. Denying it to people is wrong (by my philosophy) and providing it when necessary is right (again, by my philosophy).
But then, there's a question... does this conflict with the fact that marijuana is illegal in the US? Should a person disregard the law, or should the law be held to because it *IS* the law?
I'd pondered this for a long while, trying to find a solution to it. My answer was, "of course... you should disregard the law in this case, because it's important". Okay, but then, when should you obey a law, just because it's the law? Ever?
The answer came to me one day recently... I was pondering situations where a person is beyond the reach of the law, and trying to decide how that person should feel constrained. Well, that's one step away from being in a lawless situation, like a brand new society. And I realized then that the key to having laws in the first place is to serve people. People did not exist to serve the laws.
And suddenly, the principle to decide "obey the law, or not" was obvious... you should obey a law that is serving the people. You should not feel morally constrained by a law that is not serving the people. More importantly, if a law is harming the people, you just about have a moral imperative not to obey it. (When wouldn't you? Well, if breaking that law will indirectly cause other harm, you have to measure the harm in obediance with the harm of disobediance... but this will be based only on harm, and not on the law itself.
I suppose this isn't too terribly profound, but it tied up an aggravating loose end in my philosophical musings.
no subject
Date: 2002-04-30 05:56 am (UTC)"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world."
From the Declaration of Independence. :)