This Maxim calls on people to obey the laws of the land in which they live. You pay your taxes, you follow the orders of the duly appointed, you respect the culture and you conduct yourself with honor. While you may disagree with a law you find unjust, you challenge it in debate and effect change in whatever manner existing law prescribes. You do not simply disregard laws you find inconvenient or disrupt civil society to hold government hostage to your demand for a law change. Law and order is the bedrock on which civilization is built and should be upheld at all times lest you sow instability and chaos. As always, I ask that any atheists that wish to comment limit themselves to the philosophical aspects of the Maxims as I don't want these threads derailed into a general theological debate.
And what if the law directly contradicts your religion? Do you expect people to disobey the Creator of the Universe and risk their eternal soul so they can obey manmade temporary rules? And what if the law is brutally unjust and you have no recourse to challenge it "in whatever manner existing law prescribes"? Do you expect people to quietly watch their children die? Your "maxim" is incredibly shallow.
No, its just that maxims are not absolutes, which is probably the underlying rationale for this line of posts.
Real Maxim #2. Fukk the law! The "law" is written by the rich and powerful for the benefit of the rich and powerful. Also, in a linguistic, legal sense, the "law" means whatever you have the money and power to say it means.
Well there is no creator of the universe for starters. Even taking a literal view of scripture, the 1st gods were a product of the universe's creation, not the other way around. The universe sprang from nothingness, I wouldn't go so far as to say the Big Bang (in theological terms, I do believe that to be the scientific explanation) as the concept was an early modern notion but it's a similar idea. To be clear, the relevant theology is utterly unrelated to the Abrahamic faiths so looking for equivalencies is a fool's erand. Of course not. Tyranny isn't a legitimate form of government and I will eventually get to that point. As stated, I'll only be covering 1 Maxim per day so don't assume (especially only 2 in) that every angle is covered. The Maxim isn't shallow, just out of context. As I said, there are 147 and this is only the 2nd. Indeed. Theologically, becuase the gods command it. In secular terms, that's a field of philosophy in it's own right so the answer really depends on your ideological worldview. Unless you're an anarchist, you already have an answer.
I'm a nihilist, so I don't believe that there is any objective reason why anyone should uphold any maxim.
If the law has come about by democratic means and is not bad law then it should be obeyed. But even if a law is bad it should be obeyed until it's removed or amended.
Nihilism is "a viewpoint that traditional values and beliefs are unfounded and that existence is senseless and useless".
Exactly. You may 'care' but if it's meaningless, why bother? That you do bother causes me to question your claim. I suppose you could be an illogical nihilist but I'd wager the truth is closer to you taking a dim view of life and/or society and poorly articulating your position. Regardless, this is going a bit off topic.
It does not matter whether you believe a religion or not. Religion is the most fundamental aspect of humanity, it has been a prime motivator in human society throughout all recorded history, it deeply influences human morality and human law - which is the topic of your "maxim 2" - and yet you completely dismiss it with your own personal little bias. Forget the rest of your "maxim's", you have so utterly failed in this one that the rest are dismissed as a waste of time.
What do you do when Caesar says "I am your god, you will worship me and no other?" Which actually happened in the 1st Century AD.
A problem with judicial or a societal law is that some laws judge harmless action as illegal/wrong/bad/immoral, such as same sex marriage as it should have never been illegal as it in and of itself causes no harm to anyone. Another problem is that historically some laws are immoral or turn a blind eye to immorality, for example slavery, which should have never been allowed to continue upon the creation of America. Laws are only as good as the people who make them and should not be blindly obeyed. A good lawmaker can concisely express why a law is needed and the axiom it is founded upon.
Remember King Darius' law from Daniel 6:11-13 (CEB)) = 11 Just then these men, all ganged together, came upon Daniel praying and seeking mercy from his God. 12 They then went and talked to the king about the law: Your Majesty! Didnt you sign a law, that for thirty days any person who prays to any god or human being besides you, Your Majesty, would be thrown into a pit of lions? The king replied, The decision is absolutely firm in accordance with the law of Media and Persia, which cannot be annulled. 13 So they said to the king, One of the Judean exiles, Daniel, has ignored you, Your Majesty, as well as the law you signed. He says his prayers three times a day!
bummer. Personally I have always found a wide variety of extremely enjoyable uses for my senses. Most enjoyable indeed.
So if you use a cell phone while driving, or don't fasten your seat belts, or drive after two drinks, or jaywalk, or spit on the sidewalk, or don't declare all your income, or smoke pot, you are destroying civilization. Well I Say good riddance.
Actually the prime motivator is probably self interest followed perhaps by greed. But then of course that seems to be what has motivated most religious leaders throughout history.
So you are modifying your position and it is now allowable to,pick and choose the laws you want to follow. That appears to be a significant flip flop and I suspect invalidates obey the law as a Maxim.
Simple, read your first paragraph from your previous post: Instead of dealing with religion as a human motivator (and therefore it is a fundamental facet of the law), you simply claim it to be irrelevant. It does not matter what you personally believe when you are trying to propose general truths of humanity. Your personal opinion of a Creator of the Universe or the Abrahamic faith is irrelevant, what is relevant is that billions of people deeply believe various religions and their actions are dependent upon those beliefs. You want to propose all these "maxim's" yet if you cannot rise above your personal bias then you are wasting your time.
