johnpalmer (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
johnpalmer) wrote2002-04-30 05:45 am
johnpalmer) wrote2002-04-30 05:45 am
(no subject)
Okay... 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.