I had a thought the other day. We have legal duties to our government who are established as qualified legal authorities by us voting them in. When it comes to piracy it seems many people apply the following premise to make themselves feel better:
- If I can’t see why a certain law exists or don’t agree with a certain law, then it is fine for me to ignore the duties established by that law.
Now it clearly seems that we would disagree with this in cases like murder or rape, so why the restricted application?
One possible answer is that legal duties like murder and rape have moral duty counterparts, and so we have additional reason to obey those duties. But if one doesn’t think that there are any objective moral duties, such a move isn’t available.
We could, however, look to some objective fact for a differentiator, such as those duties that lead to the flourishing of human life or the survival of the fittest. But in the absence of objective moral duties why choose that fact over any other? What’s to stop one from picking the duties that lead to the most pain for others?
Is there an alternative to (1) that I’m unaware of, or a better reason for the restricted application of it?
Thinking Thought Out 