|
"In a perfect world, I'd agree with you. The law-questioner should always talk with the law-creator, because they might agree with your dissonance -- they might even be persuaded to remove the law or give you amnesty to it. However, in the enormous republic(an) State that we have now, communicating directly with the law-creator isn't as simple as the kid waiting for the parent to get home. It could take weeks or months to get a reply, and not necessarily a satisfactory one. If the parent refused to let the child play in the street even in the traffic-ending construction, and failed to provide a reason -- then I believe the child would have been correct to disobey it. A law is worthless without a justification."
a) A law is worthless without justification? Hokum, I say! If a law is passed for good and proper reasons, you personally not knowing the reason does not mean the reason is not valid, nor that the law is worthless. As a practical matter, in a representative government such explanations are almost always available with a little effort.
b) You first state that the law-questioner should talk with the law-creator and ask that the law be suspended or revoked before simply breaking it. You then say that this is, however, not practical. After all, the law-making body may not agree with you. Do you see the flaw in this logic? If everyone agreed with a particular rule at all times, then there would be no need for the rule in the first place. The rule exists to keep you from doing something that you want to do, but which the law-giver (in our case, the representative governing body) has specifically defined as being forbidden.
c) You suggest that if the child reasons that the rule (don’t play in the street) is not really valid, and no satisfactory reason is supplied, then the child is correct to break the rule.
This is wrong. If the child was capable of making such decisions, there would be no need for rules in the first place. The child may be incapable of judging the need for the rule. The child may not have all the information (Sure there is no traffic due to construction. But there may be an exclusion zone due to blasting.) It is often good for the parent to explain the rule, but this is NOT a requirement. Indeed, one rule is that the child must obey the parent even in instances where the child can see no harm (even pleasure) is disobeying. Children who do not do this are very unpleasant to be around, which is ultimately to their disadvantage..
|