"A law is only as good as the good that comes from it." - true? false? discuss!

It’s useful because it forms a pattern.

does it? what pattern is formed?

Obeying every law at all times would be senseless.

I’m sure there are laws that contradict each other too.

Laws are good because, as @missingbite says, they form a pattern. When there is a law in effect that applies to everyone, it helps maintain order, and it helps keep everyone safe.

This especially holds for laws that govern human interaction. Sometimes when I’m riding my bike I will come to a stop sign at the end of a side street, and a car coming along the road that I’m waiting to turn onto will stop, and wave for me to go. The motorist means well, but I’d much prefer if they simply obeyed the law, and kept going. When everyone obeys laws, everyone knows what to expect. It’s safer that way.

It isn’t the specific law that makes a law work; it’s the cooperation of all members of a group in behaving on an agreed upon way.

Laws are dependent on the values of the individual.

I’ll agree that a law is only as good as the good that comes from it, but it’s important to keep in mind that different people have different ideas of what “good” means. Take laws prohibiting drug use, for example. Some people will say that it is good that cocaine is illegal, since it limits the number of people taking an addictive drug, which is bad. I would maintain that the law is bad, because I believe that an adult’s freedom to choose what drugs he or she consumes is more important than the negative consequences of drug use.

Similarly, laws that require citizens to pay taxes may be good or bad, depending on the degree to which you support the way those tax dollars are spent.

Any fool can make a rule, and any fool will mind it.

I can make a rule right now.
New Rule: Every question on Fluther must begin with the phrase “Oh, Great Dr. J, Please bless this answer with the holy waves of your gigantic brain, so that it might be a worthy and great question.”

See that? A rule is nothing. So yes, it is the good that comes from it that determines the worth of the law.

Sometimes I break traffic laws because it makes me feel alive. Life is so mundane.

Technically, laws with exceptions are not considered as good as they are not absolute. If we are seeing it this way, we would only have a few laws that are absolute in this world, and most of them are ones considering jail and taxes. I can understand the good from those things, but for the other “laws”, I’m not so sure.

Laws are the price you pay for living as part of a society and accepting the benefits of that society (which by the way virtually no one ever questions the wisdom of doing or their right to those benefits).

Without laws, the sheer chaos that would ensue from the anarchy would prevent the society from making progress, from its members having healthy, happy lives.

The idea that any member of the society could randomly and at will decide that their personal best interests outweigh the good of the society as a whole (an alarming trend that we see more and more of daily in our increasingly me-oriented society) results, obviously, in that same anarchy mentioned above.

While you decide the run lights when there is no traffic, other guys are deciding there is no reason to obey the speed limits in low-traffic times. Or there is no reason not to use your firearm as a noisemaker in the middle of the night despite laws to the contrary. You run the red one and get t-boned by the guy going 100 mph through the green light. Or you run the red one and a steel jacketed bullet fired more than a mile away breaks your window and hits you in the head.

Who is to decide which laws “make sense” and when? The society has said the formation of laws should be left to a group of people elected to do that task for the society, should be interpreted and determined to be just according to our primary societal guidance (in the case of the U.S. the Constitution) by the courts (peopled by societal representatives with special training) and should be enforced by trained representatives of the society (law enforcement) sworn to uphold those laws.

I like that idea much better than having you (nothing personal) deciding which laws you will and will not obey. Your decisions are not based on what is best for the safety and well-being of society as a whole, but what is, in fact, convenient for you at the time. Personally, I don’t find that idea reassuring.

Thus, people obey laws out of respect for the rules of the society in which they live and whose benefits they enjoy and compromise minor personal inconvenience for the greater good.

I’ve often wondered the same thing about blowing through a red light when no one is around. But I suppose if you leave it up to the interpretation of the offender, there’d be a lot more accidents and their defense would be “I thought I could make it”...

Holy hell, I second @Marina.

Fantastic.

Damn. Now I agree with both sides.

^you can only agree with both sides if one side hasn’t made their position distinct from the other.

the idea that any member of the society could randomly and at will decide that their personal best interests outweigh the good of the society as a whole

Excellent post, marina. Unfortunately, I have to say, this isn’t what we’re talking about.

We’re not talking about someone taking ignorant or blind or ill-conceived risks. We’re talking about someone making a safe decision. Specifically, someone making a safe decision at the same time as “breaking a law.”

Clearly, if someone made a poor decision and an accident or some other evil was caused, action would be necessary to prevent that evil-doer from reoffending.

However, the question is actually this: If “breaking a law” is entirely victimless and safe… why should you be penalized? Hmm.. maybe I should ask it this way: What good would it do to penalize someone for making safe and victimless action?

there may even be answers!

@ninjacolin You are missing my point. If an individual decides to ignore the law, because he believes it will hurt no one, he could be wrong in his belief. That is why the law exists to take the decision out the realm of individual decision.

If you are attempting to make your question a pure hypothetical in which we all agree that the decision to disobey the law is victimless and safe, I still would say that the law should be obeyed. Because to not do so, leads the scofflaw to greater and more frequent departures from the law. The idea of enforcement and penalty work as deterrents. This is a good thing.

Don’t run a stop sign or light when no one is around. There is likely to be a motorcycle cop hiding behind a nearby building watching. (Spoken from experience.)

There is a name for judging at rule, action, law, or process based on it’s outcome.

Lets say I produce a new drug, that will save 10 lives for 100$.

cool huh?

Now, imagine the horror when you discover that It’s made from taking a 75 year old patient out of a nursing home and removing the living brain, and keeping it alive on bypass for a week. In the end the body and brain die, but the brain is alive, aware, and suffering terribly.

In here the ends (10 saved lives) are good,but at the expense of one life that is tortured and ended without permission.

Still want my drug now?

When the ends are justified by the means this is called a utilitarian argument.

In one of the above examples – a safely driven traffic light, achieved by breaking a law felt irrelevant, could produce negative outcomes. Imagine if it’s shown that disregard for laws in this fashion correlates, with the degree of risk driving, and actually enforcing unbelievably saves 5 lives a day in our nation.

When we write our own rules as we go, it’s unreasonable to expect a perfect outcome.

What do I do? I run those lights. I speed. I’ve been on probation twice.

I love risk. It’s totally unethical, and I love it. You wont find me trying to justify it. Waste of time.

Why care about utilitarian, pragmatic, relativistic, humanist thinking?

Sooner or later I’ll be around, asking what to do with the life support on that 75 year old woman, your grandmother.

Prepare now.

If this were the case, concerning a red traffic signal, the light would be flashing red and not solid red.

Fact from fiction, truth from diction. There are tons of laws that are laws for the sake of laws and some to control individuals or groups of people that get in the way more than it helps. I had an acquaintance who was homeless, and I asked how do he eat when the soup kitchen was not open, he was too far away or was still hungry after going? He told me he goes dumpster diving at the fast foods and restaurants in the area. He say if he is there when the establishment gets ready to toss it out he has to go UNTIL they toss it in the trash then he can come back and get it. I asked why they can’t just give it to him since they are throwing it away anyhow. He said because it would be illegal. Can you imagine that? It would be illegal to give food to a homeless person you were going to toss out anyhow? That law I can’t phantom.