Kevin Gowen wrote:

> Eric Takabayashi wrote:
> > Kevin Gowen wrote:
> >
> >>>>>>> You accept
> >>>>>>> problematic or flawed decisions as law?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Yes. What other choice is there?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Obeying or doing what is actually right.
> >>>>
> >>>> I see. So private citizens or public servants who disagree with a
> >>>> court decision should disregard it in order to do what is actually
> >>>> right.
> >>>
> >>> If a law is wrong, as laws have been in the past, or as seen in
> >>> other nations or forms of government.
> >>
> >> Whoa. What a bizarre statement, especially the part about other
> >> nations.
> >
> > Why? Should we obey "oppressive" laws instead?
>
> Why not?

Because they are "oppressive", not proper or necessary, as the distinction
was given.

> How do you decide whether or not to obey a law.

By whether or not it is proper or necessary.

> For example, how
> did you decide to disobey the Japanese laws regarding the carrying of a
> concealed weapon.

By realizing that law is not proper or necessary, though I do not call it
"oppressive", nor do I even claim that carrying a "concealed weapon" is
right, thus this instance does not apply.

Why don't you use an example which would apply, where obeying a law would
actually prevent one from doing what is right? What is your view on the
Fugitive Slave Law, for example? Should it have been obeyed or disregarded?
Were the people of the Underground Railroad doing the right thing, or merely
disregarding the law as they damn well pleased?

> >>>> Got it.
> >>>
> >>> Why would that be a problem?
> >>
> >> It's only a problem if you don't want the National Guard showing up
> >> at your doorstep. Just ask George Wallace.
> >
> > Depends on the seriousness of the improper law disregarded, and the
> > will to do what is right in face of any penalty.
>
> How do you know if a law is improper? Is there an imperative to disobey
> improper laws?

If the improper law stands in the way of doing what is right, it would seem
so.

> >>> It was you who posted "It is indeed true
> >>> that 'later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and
> >>> proper in fact serve only to oppress.'"
> >>
> >> Yes, I did, a statement that refers to the legislative process, not
> >> obeying and disregarding law as one damn well pleases.
> >
> > It is not disregarding law as "one damn well pleases", it is doing
> > what is actually right, in spite of what one would actually like to
> > do.
>
> I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make.

Do you believe doing what is actually right is the same as disregarding the
law of the land "as one damn well pleases"?

> > Why are you not mentioning Kant of late?
>
> What would you like me to mention about him?

How does the CI apply to obeying problematic legal decisions made by humans?