The debate "Real laws are self-validating rationally speaking" was started by
May 23, 2015, 10:37 am.
6 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 0 person is on the disagree side.
There needs to be more votes to see what the common perception is.
It looks like most of the people in this community are on the agreeing side of this statement.
I_Voyager posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
posted the first argument on this debate as an agreeing part.
I_Voyager, soullesschicken, WordSpeller, toughgamerjerry, sdiop and 1 visitor agree.
I say "rationally speaking" because I accept that laws themselves must be enforced to be applicably true. But when we're rationalizing what laws ought to be followed or ought not to be followed, only those which are self-validating will be concluded upon as viable or appropriate laws. I may as well call these ones the "real laws".
Let's take two laws and contrast them. Law A) says don't murder people. Let's not discuss what killing is or is not murder. We'll simply say whatever the most justifiable term for murder is, is our murder. And Law B) says something like kill the Jews, or oppress the Palestinians, or enslave the Helots.
Law A) is validated inductively by the fact of human relationships, yes? We can argue that murder tangles society in justice-debts whereby those who are close to the murdered have a filial obligation to seek retribution on behalf of the deceased, and those who have murdered have a self-preservation instinct which will oppose that retribution. The state has an obligation to step in and mediate that relationship. Murder is a messy affair and complicates society, depreciates the economy by removing its components and spending its energy. Furthermore, if anyone has a right to not be murdered, then we must all have that right, unless we infringe upon that right, in which case we lose that right by the fact of offending that right.
But Law B) seems to be validated by the politics of the time. It's a contextual law which is only relevant to the fact of Jews/Palestinians/Helots. It cannot come from a right, since the right to have no Jews around is not universal (after all, no Jew can share this right). Since killing the Jews is murder, all those harmed by the death of Jewish people have to seek retribution on behalf of those people. If the law has a motive, it's political. Some agency is trying to achieve strength in a power struggle by the method of the law. This means the law is not "true" because it is not inductive of social facts, it's not derived from a right we must all have in common, and it achieves no justice or good.
If it is true then that there are "Real Laws" and "False Laws", it may be just and appropriate for citizens to follow verified or verifiable true laws even if they aren't enforced by or acknowledged by the state, and it may so too be appropriate to deliberately resist false laws. Therefore wherever there are false laws a citizens duty is to practice civil disobedience against those laws.