Putting aside social morality and civil disobedience, let's look at rules governing entrepreneurs and markets, most of which revolve around information and its manipulation (fraud in worst case).
1. asymmetric information between seller and buyer - aka the lemon problem
2. front-running ... where the market/settlement mechanisms is not independent
3. moral hazard ... behaviour based on privatising profits and socialising losses (cough GFC).
You have to design specific mechanisms to counteract ... eg the various types of auctions (english/dutch) to try to foster fair and efficient transaction markets. So rules are to shape these economic exchanges for price discovery which is not-distorted and therefore feed into decision making for resource allocation. Bad data (eg hidden inflation) screws up everything.
"Morality" is a vague term that can only be understood in a specific context of time and place, as refers to a specific group of people. So I will intentionally not comment on that.
I'm a positivist that think laws are product of the social contract, so nothing good can come out of just "not respecting them". Laws and regulations are our way of molding the society to our desires. In our democratic society, they are meant to be changed by the majority or at least in agreement with them.
That said, it is not "forbidden" to break the law (there's no uber-law punishing the individual for breaking any law), but breaking it implies consequences that need to happen in order for our societies to function properly.
Now a consequence of breaking a law might be punishment... or the law being changed.
Without the rule of law, there will be other types of ruling, which most of us agree it didn't help humanity as much...
I claim that (democratic) legal positivism is wrong.
Example: you find a solitary hermit. You like his staff. You bang him on the head to take his staff. Is that right, even though there is no enforceable law?
No. This example shows that morality and law are independent.
Other classic example is Nazi Germany law.
The typical answer is: the law-making process needs to be legitimate for it to be moral.
That is clearly a circular argument, since legitimate means "follow the law". But we're looking for a justification for independent obedience to the law, i.e. regardless of what it is.
Your argument is that with a democratic process, the outcome of the law is right.
This argument is also wrong, counterexample: You're a professor visiting a restaurant with a group of students. The students say "we have voted as a majority that you pay." Are you now obligated to pay? No, they have no right to force you to pay.
A very interesting and difficult subject. I understand what you imply, but I think you start from the believe morality is universal.
I don't think that's the case. I don't think people agree on what "morality" is. Regarding the example you gave, I don't even think morality was different to the law in the Nazi time, just with in any other genocide (e.g. spanish "conquerors"), people were not acting against their morality while doing those terrible acts.
To bring it closer to our current occidental world, so it's perhaps easier for me to depict my point: let's see abortion.
There are two clear opposing views to it. Which one is the "immoral" one?
Well, I think I can say with a 100% certainty: immoral is the position of those that don't agree with me.
Otherwise I would have change my morality already.
With this I just want to point out that relying on the morality of people is, in my opinion, the same as not relying on anything at all.
So is dropping the social contract a better way for society? I doubt it, as we were already there and we know it wasn't. But there might be other options I'm just not seeing right now.
In any case, laws are not universal, laws are just an efficient way to manifest the social contract (otherwise we would need to close contracts with each individual).
Laws are, per definition, meant to be changed. Sadly we do too little to review old laws and drop them as they become unfitting for the society as it changes (I intentionally avoided the word "evolve" here).
Laws are neither right or wrong, and how good they adapt to morality changes with time, as morality changes but they don't.
So I think the rule of law is the best way societies found to assure a good live for their individuals.
If rules get outdated, I don't think we should break them; I think we should just change them.
And regarding democracy, I just don't think we have found a better way (a prefer direct democracy to the blank check we call representative democracy). I understand that "the majority is not always right", bit nothing tells me that the minority will. And this takes us back to the morality point again. I can understand your example, if there was a universal morality.
I think statements like "needlessly murdering an innocent person is wrong" are true, regardless of the observer.
We don't need agreement to find true moral statements. It doesn't change that the above is a correct moral claim that Ted Bundy disagrees.
The abortion example shows that morality is complex, not that there can never be any true moral statements.
It also shows that people often have incorrect views about the world like "person X disagrees with me, therefore X is an immoral person."
You can't expect any theory of morality to solve the problem of people having incorrect views or disagreeing with each other, that's a too high standard.
"So is dropping the social contract a better way for society?"
I doubt a real social contract exists. What we mean by a contract typically is a) clearly written down, and b) has reciprocal obligations.
Laws therefore don't reflect a social contract - because you didn't consent to these laws.
Some people say you implicitly agree to the social contract by staying in the country. That's a bit cynical, like your alternatives are to either obey to any law regardless of what it is, or you have to leave family, friends and a job behind to switch to another place.
In reality, what we have is more like what we know from economics as a local monopoly. There is only one provider of laws, and almost no competition / high switching cost. Economic theory would predict that the service gets worse, while cost increases.
That seems to me what is happening.
Which is why my answer to the problem is: create more competition for better laws & governance, and offer a real, written social contract with voluntary opt-in.
Putting aside social morality and civil disobedience, let's look at rules governing entrepreneurs and markets, most of which revolve around information and its manipulation (fraud in worst case).
1. asymmetric information between seller and buyer - aka the lemon problem
2. front-running ... where the market/settlement mechanisms is not independent
3. moral hazard ... behaviour based on privatising profits and socialising losses (cough GFC).
You have to design specific mechanisms to counteract ... eg the various types of auctions (english/dutch) to try to foster fair and efficient transaction markets. So rules are to shape these economic exchanges for price discovery which is not-distorted and therefore feed into decision making for resource allocation. Bad data (eg hidden inflation) screws up everything.
Very interesting topic!
And something I bang my head against often...
"Morality" is a vague term that can only be understood in a specific context of time and place, as refers to a specific group of people. So I will intentionally not comment on that.
I'm a positivist that think laws are product of the social contract, so nothing good can come out of just "not respecting them". Laws and regulations are our way of molding the society to our desires. In our democratic society, they are meant to be changed by the majority or at least in agreement with them.
That said, it is not "forbidden" to break the law (there's no uber-law punishing the individual for breaking any law), but breaking it implies consequences that need to happen in order for our societies to function properly.
Now a consequence of breaking a law might be punishment... or the law being changed.
Without the rule of law, there will be other types of ruling, which most of us agree it didn't help humanity as much...
Thanks for the challenge!
I claim that (democratic) legal positivism is wrong.
Example: you find a solitary hermit. You like his staff. You bang him on the head to take his staff. Is that right, even though there is no enforceable law?
No. This example shows that morality and law are independent.
Other classic example is Nazi Germany law.
The typical answer is: the law-making process needs to be legitimate for it to be moral.
That is clearly a circular argument, since legitimate means "follow the law". But we're looking for a justification for independent obedience to the law, i.e. regardless of what it is.
Your argument is that with a democratic process, the outcome of the law is right.
This argument is also wrong, counterexample: You're a professor visiting a restaurant with a group of students. The students say "we have voted as a majority that you pay." Are you now obligated to pay? No, they have no right to force you to pay.
Majority rule does not make what you do moral.
A very interesting and difficult subject. I understand what you imply, but I think you start from the believe morality is universal.
I don't think that's the case. I don't think people agree on what "morality" is. Regarding the example you gave, I don't even think morality was different to the law in the Nazi time, just with in any other genocide (e.g. spanish "conquerors"), people were not acting against their morality while doing those terrible acts.
To bring it closer to our current occidental world, so it's perhaps easier for me to depict my point: let's see abortion.
There are two clear opposing views to it. Which one is the "immoral" one?
Well, I think I can say with a 100% certainty: immoral is the position of those that don't agree with me.
Otherwise I would have change my morality already.
With this I just want to point out that relying on the morality of people is, in my opinion, the same as not relying on anything at all.
So is dropping the social contract a better way for society? I doubt it, as we were already there and we know it wasn't. But there might be other options I'm just not seeing right now.
In any case, laws are not universal, laws are just an efficient way to manifest the social contract (otherwise we would need to close contracts with each individual).
Laws are, per definition, meant to be changed. Sadly we do too little to review old laws and drop them as they become unfitting for the society as it changes (I intentionally avoided the word "evolve" here).
Laws are neither right or wrong, and how good they adapt to morality changes with time, as morality changes but they don't.
So I think the rule of law is the best way societies found to assure a good live for their individuals.
If rules get outdated, I don't think we should break them; I think we should just change them.
And regarding democracy, I just don't think we have found a better way (a prefer direct democracy to the blank check we call representative democracy). I understand that "the majority is not always right", bit nothing tells me that the minority will. And this takes us back to the morality point again. I can understand your example, if there was a universal morality.
But I'm sure there isn't.
Correct, I am a moral realist.
I think statements like "needlessly murdering an innocent person is wrong" are true, regardless of the observer.
We don't need agreement to find true moral statements. It doesn't change that the above is a correct moral claim that Ted Bundy disagrees.
The abortion example shows that morality is complex, not that there can never be any true moral statements.
It also shows that people often have incorrect views about the world like "person X disagrees with me, therefore X is an immoral person."
You can't expect any theory of morality to solve the problem of people having incorrect views or disagreeing with each other, that's a too high standard.
"So is dropping the social contract a better way for society?"
I doubt a real social contract exists. What we mean by a contract typically is a) clearly written down, and b) has reciprocal obligations.
Laws therefore don't reflect a social contract - because you didn't consent to these laws.
Some people say you implicitly agree to the social contract by staying in the country. That's a bit cynical, like your alternatives are to either obey to any law regardless of what it is, or you have to leave family, friends and a job behind to switch to another place.
In reality, what we have is more like what we know from economics as a local monopoly. There is only one provider of laws, and almost no competition / high switching cost. Economic theory would predict that the service gets worse, while cost increases.
That seems to me what is happening.
Which is why my answer to the problem is: create more competition for better laws & governance, and offer a real, written social contract with voluntary opt-in.