A dialogue on Obediance and Law: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » A dialogue on Obediance and Law » A dialogue on Obediance and Law

A dialogue on Obediance and Law
A short story

Page: 1 2 3 4

A dialogue on Obediance and Law

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 08/07/09 - 11:08 PM: Subject: A dialogue on Obediance and Law	#1
Just another mellow day, hanging out with my buddies at the beach. With the sun scorching our backs and the sand scalding our feet, we knew no better way to cool off than a swim to our favorite hideaway: a nearby island. Now among this particular circle of friends, it is tradition for us to smoke a joint of fine cannabis before we embark on the great swim to our little island. I looked at my freshly rolled joint with pride, with it's perfect symmetry promising a slow even burn. “This was going to be a good day”, I thought in silent appreciation. Anticipating the bellowing clouds of smoke as I neared the flame to the tip of my joint, I noticed that my buddy seemed distressed. Puzzled by this, I shot him an inquisitive look. His response was a discreet glance towards a pair of policemen not a few meters away. “Ahh, what notorious timing!” I exclaimed, now considering what the best course of action would be. On one hand, we could always wait for the policeman to leave and then commence to smoke in their absence. On the other hand, I could muster up my will power and see if I could reason with these fine gentlemen of the law. Thinking to myself that it would be a shame to have to hide like a criminal for such a harmless act, I chose the latter. “I'll be right back buddies” I said, tucking the joint snugly in the nook above my ear. The officers were briskly on patrol when my presence demanded their attention. “Good day, gentlemen,” I said as I came upon them. “Good day,” said the officer who appeared the junior of the two, “What can we help you with, citizen?” “I am an inquisitive individual and I would like to hear your thoughts on some issues that I've been pondering” I said simply, “ Would you spare some time?” “Sure thing,” he replied promptly, “What's on your mind?” “Well first off, what is the purpose of the police? Why are you here?” “Why, our purpose as officers of the law is to safeguard and protect the lives and rights of all individuals,” he replied looking astonished that such a question would be asked “That is very noble of you, but one might wonder, if all individuals were intent on your help, why do you carry a gun around? Also, as an officer of the law, what is the law to you?” “We carry guns to enforce the will of the Law. The Law determines how all people ought to act and behave. We enforce the Law for it is absolute.” He said in a very “matter of fact” tone. “So is that to say that a peaceful coexistence is attainable only through lawful enforcement?” “Yes.” he curtly replied Knowing this to be wrong, I endeavored to challenged his claim, “ Have you ever heard of the Bushmen of Africa?” “No, I have not.” “They are a people who coexist in peace with each other without any form of written law. In place, there is natural order. An unspoken order which is understood by all who live in their community. An order that is practiced in their daily lives, achieving a peaceful stability. For example, instead of having a written law to prevent X from stealing from Y, X does not steal from Y because X knows that if X steals from Y, Y will not be able to hunt, gather, or build as well for the whole community. Therefore, if X stole from Y, there will be less food or supplies to go around and the whole tribe would suffer. Mutual understanding gives way for a peaceful coexistence. This fact cannot be disputed for their way of life has been preserved for thousands of years without a written doctrine of law, and still exists today.” “That is interesting, but I still do not see what you are getting at. Besides, they are not the people we are concerned with, they can live how they please.” He replied with a hint of annoyance in his voice. “Exactly, they live how they please. But didn't you say that people should live in accordance with your Law? That it was to be absolute for all people?” “Well, okay. If you put it that way, the law is not absolute.” “I agree,” I said, satisfied with his answer, “Let's move on. Here's another question. If you were asked to enforce a law which you felt was wrong, would you enforce it?” “We have sworn an oath to abide by and enforce whatever the Law commands, if I am asked something of the Law, I cannot refuse.” “I see. Are you happy with your job?” I asked, speaking to the person beneath the uniform. “Why yes, yes I am. Although I am still a junior officer, I feel that what I do is good for society and that is something I am proud of.” He replied with a steady look of pride. “But if you were ordered to do something you felt was unjust and harmful to society, you would neither feel proud nor happy with your job," I said, noticing a sudden change in this demeanor. “No, I guess I would feel very differently then. I do not think I would be happy with my job if I was ordered to enforce an unjust law.” “Haha, now imagine how it'd feel to be forced to obey, by point of gun, a law which one felt was unjust and wrong," I asked with a mocking smile, “These citizens can't be too happy about that now can they?” “No, I guess not.” he replied solemnly “So if your reason in joining the police is to safeguard the well being of people in society, but if by obeying an unjust policy you are in fact harming the well being of people, then is it unreasonable to refuse to enforce a harmful policy?” “Considering your argument, I do not suppose so.” “Now I'll ask you again. If you were asked to enforce an unjust law, would you do it?” “No, I would not” The senior officer looks sternly at his junior, and stirs from his silence: “This is a question every officer has to face, and it is always a matter of judgment. We are creatures with the capacity to think by our own reason and define our own morality. One must always do what one feels is right, or else face the mental torture of a fickle guilt. Fickleness from the inability to act in accordance to one's morality. And guilt, from the reaction of the soul against the injustices one has enforced unquestionably. Putting aside the individual's psyche, one ought not to enforce unjust laws, for enforcing an unjust policy would just strengthen it and make it harder to dismantle", he paused for a moment as if in deep thought, and continued, “One must always do what one feels is right, but this is where things can get complicated. For by what standards should the rightness of an action be measured? In my experience, a policy is justified if it's practice produces more good then harm for the individuals that are affected by the policy. It is unjust, if more harm than good is a result of it's practice.” I could see reason in his point of view, but I was still unsatisfied with his answer: “I concur with your utilitarian view so far, but my lack of experience still inhibits me from grasping the full picture. How can a policy which requires the use of force, like your guns, bring about good?” “By the negation of a negative. An individual is considered negative if his or her actions directly infringes on or inhibited the lives and freedom of others. Justice is a reaction to injustice, we are officers charged with the duty to neutralize the efforts of negative individuals by means of enforcement. By jailing criminals who are intent on harming others, I believe that we make the streets safer.” “So is that to say that if the effect of an individual's actions are limited to the individual, then the individual should be left free from persecution?” “Exactly.” Upon hearing his answer, I pull out my long anticipated Joint of BC bud, and with a meek smile, lit it. Taking a long slow drag of warm smoke which fills my lungs, I explain myself: “I do not believe that I am harming anyone by smoking this joint, nor do I wish to be babied over my own health. I believe that the prohibitionist laws are detrimental and very harmful to the well being of a free society. I refuse to abide by those unjust laws which you have been asked to enforce, for in giving my consent, tacit or not, I would be strengthening the acceptance of the unjust policy. If you choose to uphold your law on me by means of force, I will not resist you. But know that it will be without my respect or consent. And without my consent, the power you represent degrades from authority into coercion. I have done what I feel is right. The rest is up to you."

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 188

Posted 08/08/09 - 02:24 AM:	#2
ben_tam64 wrote: “If you were asked to enforce an unjust law, would you do it?” That's where it all falls apart: Lawmakers make the law; the police enforce all of it; the courts determine circumstances and fairness.
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 08/09/09 - 12:50 PM:	#3
Well, this is why we have judges and trials and juries. While it is the police who apply the law as they see fit, it is the judge and jury who decide if this was in the best interest of the people. In a jury trial (at least in the US), it is not only the defendant who is on trial but also the law itself. There is a long history in the US of juries finding defendants innocent regardless of the law and the evidence supporting that the law was broken. These types of jury decisions are rarely appealed to higher courts and none have ever been accepted without clear evidence of jury tampering. The people have spoken and the judiciary must defer to the people. In the past police were called peace officers and that was their job, keeping the peace. Now they are called law enforcement officers. A subtle but meaningful difference.

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 08/16/09 - 02:25 PM:	#4
"In the past police were called peace officers and that was their job, keeping the peace. Now they are called law enforcement officers. A subtle but meaningful difference" That is a cool way to put it I actually tried this the other day. Everything went as pretty much as written above, untill I asked "If you were asked to enforce an unjust law, would you do it?" I could not get a straight response.. I wonder if they are used to deflecting such questions or afraid to address them... or both?

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 188

Posted 08/16/09 - 02:41 PM:	#5
It is not for the police to interpret the law or to determine leniency. That is the job of the courts. It can be argued that if a policeman does not enforce the whole of the law, evenly and without favour, then he is acting unethically. Why? Because, when a policeman does this, he does it according to his own prejudices and without accountability. This is a bad idea for obvious reasons.
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 08/16/09 - 02:57 PM:	#6
Bobard wrote: It is not for the police to interpret the law or to determine leniency. That is the job of the courts. It can be argued that if a policeman does not enforce the whole of the law, evenly and without favour, then he is acting unethically. But there are limits -- legal limits even -- to this position. The Nuremberg trials, for example, established that it is contrary to international law to obey national law when the latter demands "crimes against humanity." We might wonder or argue about the legitimacy of things like international law, though the same could be said about national or local laws. Regardless, however natural or artificial one takes a law to be, the potential and actual ability of some party to enforce it will always be the most important factor in practice.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

Bobard
remodernist

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: May 04, 2008

Total Topics: 18
Total Posts: 188

Posted 08/16/09 - 11:48 PM:	#7
Postmodern Beatnik wrote: But there are limits -- legal limits even -- to this position. The Nuremberg trials, for example, established that it is contrary to international law to obey national law when the latter demands "crimes against humanity." We might wonder or argue about the legitimacy of things like international law, though the same could be said about national or local laws. Regardless, however natural or artificial one takes a law to be, the potential and actual ability of some party to enforce it will always be the most important factor in practice. That is an interesting point but not entirely relevant to my argument. The entire police force would be obligated (by international law) not to enforce any law contrary to international law, it is not down to the judgement of the individual officers. I can allow for this by expanding my argument slightly: It can be argued that if a policeman does not enforce the whole of the law (except those laws contra to international law), evenly and without favour, then he is acting unethically. Of course we are living in the real world and subjective and commonsense decisions are made all the time by individual officers and your second point is valid. The practical enforcement of law will never match the ideals of democratic society. However it is up to the lawmakers and the courts to fix bad laws not the police.
never argue with an idiot or a drunk

Postmodern Beatnik
I Just Work Here

Usergroup: Administrators
Joined: Nov 18, 2005

Total Topics: 17
Total Posts: 2103

Posted 08/18/09 - 06:48 AM:	#8
Bobard wrote: That is an interesting point but not entirely relevant to my argument. The entire police force would be obligated (by international law) not to enforce any law contrary to international law, it is not down to the judgement of the individual officers. Most of international law does not exist, or exists only implicitly. Yet those who passed judgment on the Nazis determined that it was within their purview to grant leniency. The principle was both established and applied during the Nuremberg trials, and so international law itself advocated the use of commonsense by those with the power to enforce the law. We need not even say that such commonsense decisions constitute applying the law unevenly or with favoritism, as it was the law itself that was to be abrogated. No one got punished at Nuremberg for executing a murderer on death row. Still, we might wonder about the place of police judgment in other circumstances. I once arrived thirty seconds after a meter had run out and convinced an officer to tear up the ticket she was writing. Was this favoritism, or did I simply manage to convince her that the situation was not what she had thought it to be? If she believes the spirit of the law requires her to only give tickets in certain situations, and if my presence and story convince her that none of those situations obtain, why should she continue writing the ticket? And yet it was certainly lenient of her not to do so. Bobard wrote: Of course we are living in the real world and subjective and commonsense decisions are made all the time by individual officers and your second point is valid. The practical enforcement of law will never match the ideals of democratic society. However it is up to the lawmakers and the courts to fix bad laws not the police. Agreed. A group of homicide detectives opposed to the death penalty would not be doing their job if they refused to investigate murders that their instincts told them were capital cases.
"The key to being a good manager is keeping the people who hate me away from those who are still undecided." --Casey Stengel

unrealist42
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 06, 2003
Location: City of Dreams

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 2252

Posted 08/24/09 - 05:25 PM:	#9
Bobard wrote: That is an interesting point but not entirely relevant to my argument. The entire police force would be obligated (by international law) not to enforce any law contrary to international law, it is not down to the judgement of the individual officers. I can allow for this by expanding my argument slightly: It can be argued that if a policeman does not enforce the whole of the law (except those laws contra to international law), evenly and without favour, then he is acting unethically. Of course we are living in the real world and subjective and commonsense decisions are made all the time by individual officers and your second point is valid. The practical enforcement of law will never match the ideals of democratic society. However it is up to the lawmakers and the courts to fix bad laws not the police. Police are also thinking individuals and citizens and their perceptions and actions are colored by their membership in these groups. The last thing any democratic nation wants is police who do not recognize themselves as members of these groups.

ben_tam64
An inquisitive individual

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 01, 2009

Total Topics: 15
Total Posts: 63

Posted 10/19/09 - 07:47 PM:	#10
Damn police, all i want is to toke in peace. Somebody help me get these monkeys off my back!!

Page: 1 2 3 4

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.