Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Al" data-source="post: 1769603" data-attributes="member: 2486">I think you misunderstand me.  The argument I'm making is that a lawful person either has to reject the legitimacy of the legal authority in its entirety, or to accept it.  One cannot be consistently lawful accepting the legitimacy of the law in some places and not in others- that is the hallmark of chaos, a pick-and-mix approach to legality.In the case of Bob the tyrant, the lawful good character would reject the entire legitimacy of Bob's regime and seek to change it, and to "re-legitimise" it.  This does not invalidate sensible laws, since these can be derived from first principles (e.g. do not murder) or according to a personal code.  It merely invalidates Bob's position as law-maker.Essentially, for a lawful person to reject the legitimacy of the law is to reject the legitimacy of the law-maker.  Lawfuls are more than entitled to say "Bob's an evil tyrant- let's reject his authority and change the laws."  They *cannot* say "Bob's authority is legitimate, but let's ignore his laws anyway".  That's the distinction.  I hope that this clears up the confusion.[Edit/PS] Actually, this particular interpretation can incorporate the impact of societal laws whilst still holding to an unimpeachably objective core."Lawful entails the acceptance of the notion that once the validity of any particular legal authority is established, then all of its laws are legitimate, but not necessarily morally right".True objective law can also be found in the proverbial "laws of nature", which is the only truly objective (or at least non-subjective) "legal authority" and whose laws are de facto legitimate even if not subject to moral judgement.This interpretation of lawfulness is both objective and universal, and has a nod towards social construction, but holds the scenario that Lord_Pendragon posted as chaotic.</blockquote>

Verification