Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
Apart from it being illegal for them not to.
Why should concentration camp guards follow orders?
- Thread starter Ereiam_jh
- Start date
Hercules
Well-Known Member
A-A,
It is not illegal for Concentartion Camp Guards not to follow orders that are illegal. Read the Geneva Convention.
It is not illegal for Concentartion Camp Guards not to follow orders that are illegal. Read the Geneva Convention.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
The Geneva Conventions only apply in times of war.
My point is that it is really not enough just to say you must obey the law because it is the law. There has to be a reason and the law has to be justified.
Everybody has the right to disobey the law if they disagree with it. Society has to decide how to deal with such people. If they are justified in disobeying the law, as I am in breaking the Hunting Act, then society should be grateful to them for poiting out to it the error of its ways.
By breaking the Hunting Act I am quite clearly fulfilling my moral and civic duty.
My point is that it is really not enough just to say you must obey the law because it is the law. There has to be a reason and the law has to be justified.
Everybody has the right to disobey the law if they disagree with it. Society has to decide how to deal with such people. If they are justified in disobeying the law, as I am in breaking the Hunting Act, then society should be grateful to them for poiting out to it the error of its ways.
By breaking the Hunting Act I am quite clearly fulfilling my moral and civic duty.
mrdarcy
Well-Known Member
I agree with you that there is a morality behind obeying or disobeying the rule of law and everyone has the right to decide on their own actions (and be prepared to take whatever consequences).
But justification in breaking a law is entirely subjective. You believe you are justified in breaking the Hunting Act - some people would agree with you, others not... and again this is the right of the individual.
As for what society feels - only history tells us the outcome of that one.
As for you - yes you are fulfilling your own moral duty... because you're doing something you believe in. But civic duty? Again that's for history to judge... all any of us can do is form our own individual opinions
But justification in breaking a law is entirely subjective. You believe you are justified in breaking the Hunting Act - some people would agree with you, others not... and again this is the right of the individual.
As for what society feels - only history tells us the outcome of that one.
As for you - yes you are fulfilling your own moral duty... because you're doing something you believe in. But civic duty? Again that's for history to judge... all any of us can do is form our own individual opinions
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
"and be prepared to take whatever consequences"
I've been prepared to take whatever consequences because there haven't been any. My kindly acting chief constable isn't going to stop me illegally chasing deer with dogs, and good on him. I very much doubt any one would be stupid enough to prosecute me for chasing deer with dogs.
If they did start prosecuting me then I suppose we'd get to the acid test. There's no way I'm going to stop flushing out deer but I'd have to decide whether or not to obey the law by shooting them.
I think the police are in on this too. I think they aren't prosecuting me because they know that the law is wrong.
In a way laws like this are deeply damaging to society. It's wrong to pass laws that the authorities are too embarrassed to enforce.
Of all the guilty parties in this sorry fiasco, I, the transgressor and criminal am the least so.
I'm sure some of the MPs who passed such a ridiculous law are reasonable people on an individual basis, but collectively they have undoubtedly been guilty of an act of gross twattery.
I've been prepared to take whatever consequences because there haven't been any. My kindly acting chief constable isn't going to stop me illegally chasing deer with dogs, and good on him. I very much doubt any one would be stupid enough to prosecute me for chasing deer with dogs.
If they did start prosecuting me then I suppose we'd get to the acid test. There's no way I'm going to stop flushing out deer but I'd have to decide whether or not to obey the law by shooting them.
I think the police are in on this too. I think they aren't prosecuting me because they know that the law is wrong.
In a way laws like this are deeply damaging to society. It's wrong to pass laws that the authorities are too embarrassed to enforce.
Of all the guilty parties in this sorry fiasco, I, the transgressor and criminal am the least so.
I'm sure some of the MPs who passed such a ridiculous law are reasonable people on an individual basis, but collectively they have undoubtedly been guilty of an act of gross twattery.
AlanE
Well-Known Member
Mmm..Gedenski, not sure if the concentration camp guards would have to rely on 'history' to establish whether or not they were doing the right thing if they disobeyed orders?
flying_change
Well-Known Member
You're not discriminating between orders issued by a military authority and laws passed by a democrtically elected Parliament.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
My case was meant to be hypothetical. If the law was passed by a democratic parliament and you beleived it was clearly wrong, then would you be justified in breaking it?
Actuallylet me clarify that, what nif the law was plainly wrong, what if they'd simply made a mistake.
For example what if the Hunting Act makes it illegal to flush out wild mammals and let them escape unharmed, as Defra inist it does. That would just be plainly stupid and wrong wouldn't it? Wouldn't people be justified in refusing to shoot animals in these circumstances?
What if they do refuse to shoot the animals and the police take no action. Isn't their point then proved?
Should we have to obey laws that are clearly absurd, even when no one can provide any sensible justification for them?
Actuallylet me clarify that, what nif the law was plainly wrong, what if they'd simply made a mistake.
For example what if the Hunting Act makes it illegal to flush out wild mammals and let them escape unharmed, as Defra inist it does. That would just be plainly stupid and wrong wouldn't it? Wouldn't people be justified in refusing to shoot animals in these circumstances?
What if they do refuse to shoot the animals and the police take no action. Isn't their point then proved?
Should we have to obey laws that are clearly absurd, even when no one can provide any sensible justification for them?
flying_change
Well-Known Member
"If the law was passed by a democratic parliament and you beleived it was clearly wrong, then would you be justified in breaking it?"
In principle, no. Protest is justified however.
"What if they do refuse to shoot the animals and the police take no action. Isn't their point then proved?"
No, only the courts (or possibly Parliament) could prove this point, not the police.
In principle, no. Protest is justified however.
"What if they do refuse to shoot the animals and the police take no action. Isn't their point then proved?"
No, only the courts (or possibly Parliament) could prove this point, not the police.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
Would you obey a law passed by a democratic parliament, no matter what it was?
Doreys_Mum
Well-Known Member
tbh, if a law prevents harm to yourself, another person, or another person's belongings, it's a good law.
As the hunting act protects neither the hunters, the public, nor a fox (who isn't anyone's belonging anyway) - it's a bad law.
And if a law promotes harm towards another person and his belongings, it should be burned along with it's creators.
As the hunting act protects neither the hunters, the public, nor a fox (who isn't anyone's belonging anyway) - it's a bad law.
And if a law promotes harm towards another person and his belongings, it should be burned along with it's creators.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
Yes
Hercules
Well-Known Member
''Yes''
Coward.
Coward.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
"Yes "
I don't think you would.
So if a law meant that you had to kill your children and a democratic parliament had passed it, and you were convinced that the law was wrong, and you were also conviced the authorities would not take action against you if you disobeyed it, would you obey it?
If a law said you should shoot deer you flush out by walking your dogs would you obey it?
I don't think you would.
So if a law meant that you had to kill your children and a democratic parliament had passed it, and you were convinced that the law was wrong, and you were also conviced the authorities would not take action against you if you disobeyed it, would you obey it?
If a law said you should shoot deer you flush out by walking your dogs would you obey it?
mrdarcy
Well-Known Member
"And if a law promotes harm towards another person and his belongings, it should be burned along with it's creators."
Hmmmm....
So it's not good to promote harm to another person yet you think the people who create 'bad' law should be burned?
Okay I know you didn't mean it literally but even so...
Would I disobey a law I didn't agree with? I don't particularly like the law that tells me I have to wear a seatbelt, but I obey it because I don't want to risk getting fined. But I don't always stick to the speed limit... so I guess the answer is yes.
Hmmmm....
So it's not good to promote harm to another person yet you think the people who create 'bad' law should be burned?
Okay I know you didn't mean it literally but even so...
Would I disobey a law I didn't agree with? I don't particularly like the law that tells me I have to wear a seatbelt, but I obey it because I don't want to risk getting fined. But I don't always stick to the speed limit... so I guess the answer is yes.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
"yes"
I think that is the only honest answer you can give.
People love to preach about respect for the law but we all break laws we think are stupid (and some we don't).
The question then becomes, should we be punished for breaking stupid laws?
I think that is the only honest answer you can give.
People love to preach about respect for the law but we all break laws we think are stupid (and some we don't).
The question then becomes, should we be punished for breaking stupid laws?
mrdarcy
Well-Known Member
"The question then becomes, should we be punished for breaking stupid laws? "
But the problem is who decides which laws are stupid and which aren't?
You'd get different answers from every person you asked. To take it to the extreme paedophiles, in their completely twisted minds, think that the law against underaged sex is stupid - to them there's nothing wrong with it.
This is why we have the CPS - as flawed and underfunded as it maybe - its there to make those decisions... whether prosecutions are in the public interest i.e. if the law broken is worth upholding in that individual case.
But the problem is who decides which laws are stupid and which aren't?
You'd get different answers from every person you asked. To take it to the extreme paedophiles, in their completely twisted minds, think that the law against underaged sex is stupid - to them there's nothing wrong with it.
This is why we have the CPS - as flawed and underfunded as it maybe - its there to make those decisions... whether prosecutions are in the public interest i.e. if the law broken is worth upholding in that individual case.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
Yes that's it. And that's why I think that if you're convinced that onbeying a law is unnecessary or stupid then just break it. If the authorities (the CPS and the police) agree with you then they will just let you carry on.
It's stupid to say that you can't chase deer with dogs if you aren't doing them any harm, the police won't prosecute you for it, so people shouldn't wrorry about breaking the law by doing so.
It's stupid to say that you can't chase deer with dogs if you aren't doing them any harm, the police won't prosecute you for it, so people shouldn't wrorry about breaking the law by doing so.
Hercules
Well-Known Member
A-A,
Correct. In the case of the Hunting Act, the only people interested in bringing about any prosecutions are LACS and their weary band of misfit supporters.
Not only are the CPS and the Police Forces not interested in prosecutions, the police themselves are not interested in policing hunts.
The message is crystal clear;
Hunters hunt on.
LACS, keep shaking your collection tins - you will need every penny that you can get. Private prosecutions are the only way that you will see a huntsman inside a court room.
Laugh? A little bit of wee came out.
Correct. In the case of the Hunting Act, the only people interested in bringing about any prosecutions are LACS and their weary band of misfit supporters.
Not only are the CPS and the Police Forces not interested in prosecutions, the police themselves are not interested in policing hunts.
The message is crystal clear;
Hunters hunt on.
LACS, keep shaking your collection tins - you will need every penny that you can get. Private prosecutions are the only way that you will see a huntsman inside a court room.
Laugh? A little bit of wee came out.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
And of course you can now suggest any hypothetical law that you like.
I'll cross the bridge of such hypothetical laws if I come to it.
I'll cross the bridge of such hypothetical laws if I come to it.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, good argument. You must be pleased with the extent of your erudition.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
As usual you refuse to answer the question.
Would you obey any and every law passed by a democratic parliament? No matter how immoral or absurd, even if there were no consequences of disobeying it because the police had agreed not to prosecute you if you did.
Would you obey any and every law passed by a democratic parliament? No matter how immoral or absurd, even if there were no consequences of disobeying it because the police had agreed not to prosecute you if you did.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
I did answer the question. You just dont like the answer.
Hercules
Well-Known Member
My erudition stems from conversations with police officers on the beat and a meeting with senior members of my local constabulary.
Recent history will also bear testament my erudition.
Am I proud? Yes.
I am also very happy that I can continue hunting without fear of prosecution.
I doubt whether you and your unwashed gaggle of friends are quite so happy.
If I was you, I would spend less time on the computer and more time shaking my collecting tin.
Recent history will also bear testament my erudition.
Am I proud? Yes.
I am also very happy that I can continue hunting without fear of prosecution.
I doubt whether you and your unwashed gaggle of friends are quite so happy.
If I was you, I would spend less time on the computer and more time shaking my collecting tin.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
So you'd kill your children if the law said you should?
I don't like that answer.
You'd stand up to the law and refuse to kill your children?
I like that one.
Which one do you like?
I don't like that answer.
You'd stand up to the law and refuse to kill your children?
I like that one.
Which one do you like?
flying_change
Well-Known Member
If you want me to demonstrate the level of courage shown by the huntsman in this item....
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5382592.stm
you're going to be disappointed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/5382592.stm
you're going to be disappointed.
flying_change
Well-Known Member
As you are in a hypothetical situation....
and such a hypothetiocal law was passed...
then my answer would probably be...
equally hypothetical.
and such a hypothetiocal law was passed...
then my answer would probably be...
equally hypothetical.
Ereiam_jh
Well-Known Member
So you'd kill your own children purely because the law told you to and you are to ashamed even to admit it.
No doubt you'd try and keep your despicable obedience to a ridiculous law private as well.
I'm shocked at you RS.
No doubt you'd try and keep your despicable obedience to a ridiculous law private as well.
I'm shocked at you RS.
emma69
Well-Known Member
I imagine that any regime that has concentration camps has such ethics that it would have no hesitation in subjecting guards who did not obey orders to the same treatment. Why humans do things such as follow rules is an interesting issue, one I have looked at length, and by far the strongest compulsion to do, or not do something, is based on personal interest (which can extend to the interests of those around them such as family) Hence why the death penalty, right or wrong, exists. It does not exist because the person would do it again (life imprisonment would accomplish this) but as a deterrent. However there are sociopaths to whom such detterents do not work. Self interest is a huge motivating factor, after that comes the view that rules exist so society may function, and whilst it may not suit an individual, the self interest is such that they find it better to comply and believe they are upholding social ideals or even norms, and therefore they are good (self interest yet again)
Hercules
Well-Known Member
Assault is a crime worth prosecuting - it's in the public interest and it causes harm to others. That is exactly why the police are not interested in the activity of hunts - unless there is a risk of public order offences.
Although not condoning the actions of the individual, worse happens at pubs across the country and at football matches every weekend. CCTV and film cameras does not stop that happenning - ring any bells?