Just curious how other intps feel in regards to abiding by the law. I evaluate the situation as it relates to the law and make decisions whether I will follow it or disobey it. For example, most stop signs if I am sure it is clear I will roll on through. In some settings I exercise more precaution ie school zones etc. I see stopping as an inefficiency for my vehicle because I am lowering my gas mileage as well as applying excess wear on parts etc. I can list many more examples of where I evaluate the law, but in case there are any cops here I will leave it to this example for now
I would only disobey laws which I absolutely deem to be unworthy of following (for very logical reasons). But for the most part, most laws aren't so disgustingly illogical that I must deem them unworthy of following. Thus, I tend to see it this way: generally speaking, laws are meant to be followed to create social organization, such that behavior is regulated for mutual benefit, as we all clearly benefit from orderly and systemic processes in social life. So I would, following this line of thinking, believe it most prudent to obey even those laws which I don't particularly like, as I can potentially become politically active and encourage others to have them changed later on down the road. As I see it, consistency in action keeps the entire system of law afloat. If people just make their own decisions as to when the law is worth following and when it isn't (unless they have absolutely very pertinent logical reasons as to why they aren't worth following from some grand ethical perspective), most people might eventually view the law as something that isn't really in their interests, and the entire idea of regulated behavior for the purpose of mutual benefit would fly out the window. Thus, one should only disobey laws when it is absolutely imperative; simply deciding to put one's personal interests (i.e., the state of their car) above the law, by deciding a red light in a particular circumstance isn't worth stopping for, really isn't justified.
Another way of looking at this situation is by using Kant's categorical imperative:
- Act only by that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it should be become a universal law.
The maxim of not stopping at a stop sign (simply because there is no one around) would be, "It's okay to break the law when there doesn't seem to be good reason to follow it." Now, if we imagined that all people overnight were to follow this maxim, what would happen? People would find many reasons to start breaking the law, such that laws would only have
conditional effect and purpose (i.e., "in particular situations"). But this doesn't make sense, because imagine what that sort of law would look like. Imagine stop signs instead meant, "Stop only when other cars are around." I'm sure many people would abuse this law to such an extent that people would not stop at stop signs by saying, "No one was there," when in fact people may have been. Thus, if most people followed the maxim, "It's okay to break the law when there doesn't seem to be good reason to follow it," stop signs would essentially have a largely lessened effect in keeping driving regulated and orderly for the mutual benefit of all drivers, such that the roads are safe and efficient. Hence, even if in a particular situation it doesn't seem to make sense to obey a stop sign, one should reason that it's most rational to stop anyway, for the reason that the following of "rules" at all times tends to have the greatest overall results for all people. Thus, people should follow laws at all times, because if people were free to decide when it's okay to follow rules, the act of breaking rules that seem pointless in a particular situation (i.e., not stopping when no one's around) would be pointless, as everyone would break laws when they thought it was pointless, such that the very point of laws would make no sense.
[Note that this is "level 6" type reasoning. And I would posit that level 6 type reasoning generally tends to support the following of most laws, even if we might wish to "reform" society Rawlsian style.]
So long story short, I don't always like the laws; but they must be followed anyway, unless we have absolutely imperative warrant to break them. Just thinking your car is better off when you don't stop at unnecessary stop lights is not an imperative warrant to break the law. It's an excuse from personal interest, and typical personal interests should never override the rule of law (for the reasons I just explained). Society is better off when people follow laws (even those that may need to be changed soon). Rather than break bad laws, one should fight for new laws, as breaking laws that seem irrational is itself irrational, as you'll end up in jail over something somewhat trivial, which isn't smart at all. So it really misses the bigger picture to think you can ever be above the law for "logical" reasons, when those reasons do not absolutely warrant the absolute disregard of any particular laws. In order to be "above the law," the law must so gross in nature as to compel you to feel it absolutely unconscionable and worthy of absolute objection/disobedience. But a mere stop sign is clearly no reason to boycott, light yourself on fire out of protest, or jump from some bridge as some crazy martyr. In other words, only truly unjust laws should ever be broken, and it requires level 6 reasoning to get to that point. But generally, many laws are in accordance with categorical, abstract, "justice" based reasoning. There just tends to be many exceptions (e.g., "prohibition of gay marriage).
If you are unfamiliar with Kohlberg's stages of moral development, I highly encourage you to check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development
I am a stage 6 (universal ethical principles) person, as I suspect many INTPs are. I have almost zero regard for the law, and any adherence I pay to it is little more than lip-service. My ethical code is much higher in my mind than any law (laws are just problems governments have no idea hot to solve properly, so they resort to coercion). I've been in trouble with the law several times because my ethical code did not play well with the laws of the establishment.
I don't think stage 6 moral reasoning necessarily renders one incapable of regarding the law. On the contrary, it only makes it possible to see "beyond the law" in particular situations, where laws are not exactly just. The simple reason is that not all laws are unjust, as many are indeed justified/logical from a stage 6 moral perspective. And despite the fact that one's own personal code of ethics may seem more noble than any law, it's often the case that the two tend to largely coincide. It's only in isolated incidents that laws tend to be extremely opposed to philosophical ethical considerations. Generally, the law is reasonably justified, in my judgment (even if governments do indeed use coercion to enforce laws). But then again, you have to realize that the enforcement of laws -- even the occasional unreasonable law -- is a basic element of civil society. So it seems you see the law as being out of sync with "higher ethics" and then naturally exaggerate the differences between the two. But just because they aren't exactly identical doesn't mean they are so incredibly unalike. Again, being in trouble with the law doesn't necessarily have a thing to do with one's personal code of ethics, as stage 6 moral reasoning does not justify all forms of protest/dissent/breaking of laws. Again, there must be warrant, and I highly doubt every time you broke the law, there was absolute, categorically warranted support for such illegality (or disregard for the law). But feel free to correct me where wrong.
On a personal note, though, I would say I have the capacity to reason in a stage 6 fashion, though it's very difficult to apply to every single social matter, or daily situation. Instead, it's often something I think about in my mind but never really apply. And stage 5 moral reasoning is absolutely disgusting. Just because it may help people come to agreements as to what is right/wrong doesn't mean it's actually justified. It uses the majority's opinion to say, "Such and such is right/wrong." That's clearly fallacious reasoning from population. But again, just because some laws aren't absolutely justified by the standards of stage 6 reasoning doesn't mean we should break them. They must be incredibly unjust to break. It's just a good thing to note to yourself that not all laws are actually "ethically justified." And as I said, those laws should just be repealed/changed, and we can all become politically active enough to help out in that regard. Or, write a book like John Rawls. lol
To further illustrate to what extent I am a sort of stage 6 thinker, I'd like to share something I wrote a few years back that seems to capture my style of "abstract" categorical thinking:
While I am not universally obligated to sacrifice my own self-interest for the sake of another’s, as a rule, I do not find it absolutely unnecessary, and I do not feel completely un-obliged, to actually take another person’s interests into account, as I do not feel as though my own interests are universally most significant -- that no one else matters, but I. For, in all regards, I am only an individual, just as they; I am only just another form of life subjectively experiencing that life; and, I am no more important or special than any other person. Although, that doesn’t necessarily mean that my life is not valuable or worth the proper respect. I, therefore, cannot be placed under another person’s will as a mindless, compliant servant, against my will, as a rule. I do have an individual will, which can be violated. I can, then, only freely choose to help another individual when my interests are not outweighed by their interests. And when my interests are outweighed by the exigent needs of another, I must act. I must provide aid, if indeed I can, with both proper confidence and rational caution -- in short, only feeling it necessary to overlook my own interests in the particular light of such a circumstantial ethical duty. For it is simply wrong to ignore a needy person’s interests, when you can easily overlook your own, without also condemning yourself.
The thing to note here is that I am looking at the situation "impersonally," from a position of "impartiality," which is a hallmark of stage 6 reasoning. A great example of this can be seen in one of Henry Sidgwick's principles, called
"The Principle or Rational Benevolence":
The good of any one individual is of no more importance, from the point of view of the Universe, than the good of any other; so that as a rational being I am bound to aim at the good generally - so far as it is attainable by my efforts -- not merely at a particular part of it.
While this is a form of utilitarianism (i.e., "maximizing the good at all times"), it does clearly express a very distinct sense of impartiality with respect to all people/beings, and many moral philosophers consider impartiality to be a very basic aspect of any good moral philosophical system.
Not that I can't actually prove it, but I think my writing there somewhat demonstrates the notion that I'm perhaps a person capable, at the very least, of stage 6 moral reasoning, even if I do not think like this in all situations, especially everyday practical life, and that I do not tend to apply these thoughts often. Again, they're just thought experiments I do for fun.
To those who claimed to be "beyond stage 6", please explain.
Yeah, "beyond stage 6" doesn't make any sense, to me.
Maybe they meant, "beyond stage 5"???
Also, it's a little funny to me that you guys try to use high-order logical/ethical reasoning to justify your rebellious decisions when it comes to the law. haha -- very typical INTP behavior. I know all about using reason to excuse my personal whims. LOL
