The question of unjust laws get settled ex post, at the end of the war (sometimes figurative, other times real ones as in the case of the nazis and us slavery). In the moment by definition you have differering viewpoints (otherwise there would be consensus to change the laws) and you can't be sure that history (again, the name says it al…
The question of unjust laws get settled ex post, at the end of the war (sometimes figurative, other times real ones as in the case of the nazis and us slavery). In the moment by definition you have differering viewpoints (otherwise there would be consensus to change the laws) and you can't be sure that history (again, the name says it all) will be on your side. With a different industrial setup both the nazis and the confederates could conveivably have won. Stalin and Mao weren't noticeably better and didnt get punished. There are crackpots that think that personal income tax laws are unjust, should we just give them a pass not paying taxes? How about people who don't believe there should be restrictions on gun ownership? If you believe so strongly in something you are willing to break the law for it, or encourage politicians to do same, good for you we need people of conviction, but it's only fair for you also to bear the consequences. Maybe one day you get exonerated, maybe not.
Well, on the point of how does fighting justify morality, i notice that war winners have disproportionately morality on their side afterwards. There were people even in ancient greece and rome that were against slavery, but we dont necessarily consider all other greeks / romans as immoral and clamor to remove their statues.
I think what you mean is "have popular opinion on their side". But you are not fooled by this right? You still think slavery is wrong, even if the slavers win?
"Bearing the consequences" might not imply bearing them voluntarily, or deliberately. It might be resigning oneself to doing so if and as caught (anyway).
The question of unjust laws get settled ex post, at the end of the war (sometimes figurative, other times real ones as in the case of the nazis and us slavery). In the moment by definition you have differering viewpoints (otherwise there would be consensus to change the laws) and you can't be sure that history (again, the name says it all) will be on your side. With a different industrial setup both the nazis and the confederates could conveivably have won. Stalin and Mao weren't noticeably better and didnt get punished. There are crackpots that think that personal income tax laws are unjust, should we just give them a pass not paying taxes? How about people who don't believe there should be restrictions on gun ownership? If you believe so strongly in something you are willing to break the law for it, or encourage politicians to do same, good for you we need people of conviction, but it's only fair for you also to bear the consequences. Maybe one day you get exonerated, maybe not.
Crackpot here. Yes, you should give me a pass. Kidnapping and jailing people for money is evil.
"Unjust laws get settled at the end of a war"
How does fighting settle questions of morality?
"It's only fair if you bear the consequences"
But that is exactly the question in dispute.
Well, on the point of how does fighting justify morality, i notice that war winners have disproportionately morality on their side afterwards. There were people even in ancient greece and rome that were against slavery, but we dont necessarily consider all other greeks / romans as immoral and clamor to remove their statues.
I think what you mean is "have popular opinion on their side". But you are not fooled by this right? You still think slavery is wrong, even if the slavers win?
"Bearing the consequences" might not imply bearing them voluntarily, or deliberately. It might be resigning oneself to doing so if and as caught (anyway).
Imagine if a robber/kidnapper said, "this will only be fair if I end up with your money and you end up locked in my basement"