🚀 go-pugleaf

"Scott Hillard" <shillard@ozemail.com.au> writes:
>> >> >Sorry, I don't obey laws I don't agree with.  Never have, never will.
>Pass
>>           *************************************
>> >> >any laws you like.
>> >> ohhh look!  Someone who puts themselves above the law!
>> >He's right, you know. Law should serve people, not be their master.
>> >Every citizen has not only the right, but the duty, to disobey unjust
>> >laws.
>> Perhaps. But "laws I don't agree with" obviously goes much further --
>> to a matter of convenience.
>Eeek, a bit too libertarian it seems for the likes of old Russell.


You're projecting again, Hillboy. I don't know what's going
on in *your* head -- apart from some apparent association for you between 
"disobeying the inconventient" and "libertarianism" -- but I'm pointing out 
that the attitute of disregarding what anyone disagrees with is not the same
as the "pursuit of justice". Somewhat the opposite, in fact.

One of the classic methods of determining "the good" when it comes to
choices between actions is to select the alternative that is most contrary 
to one's self interest.

But, of course, classical ethics is probably something else you don't
accept. The modern version -- "I want, I want, I want" -- seems to
more in your line.

>...
--
R. Kym Horsell
KHorsell@EE.LaTrobe.EDU.AU                  Kym@CS.Binghamton.EDU 
http://www.ee.latrobe.edu.au/~khorsell      http://cs.binghamton.edu/~kym