Is what is lawful always right and vice versa?

The Emperor SG

haiz... all these fight between the good and evil. Confused

being lawful isn't an issue already..

the Bear SG

what is right and what is lawful.. and the conflicts...

here's an example of it being life and death...

click here => GIs to lose insurance payout if found to be wearing self-purchased bodyarmour

there's a dose of cynicism in there too... orders come from up high for the GIs to use an ineffectual body armour (Interceptor) they are given.. and word from the front says that they are usually not even given the body armour..

soldiers therefore go and buy body armour which is commercially available (Dragonskin)... and it seems that Dragonskin works better...

so now, the army there says that if anyone dies when wearing Dragonskin, their family will not be paid the insurance...

the cynicism bit would be that someone "high up" has vested interest in the Interceptor body armour..

just like the US went to war for Bush's Big Oil cronies and every contract was given to Cheney's Halliburton cronies...

so, does might make right?

what is lawful sure as hell isn't right here..

mystiv SG

lawful may not be there, but the GI's cant do anything about the 'right' set by the govt, unless they plan to go on a major strike or something, which is not exactly feasible

the Bear SG

it would be lawful for the insurance to not pay out the US$400,000

but would it be right?

insurance takes on moral hazard.. which means that the insurance takes on the risks that you will be injured or killed..

here, the GI lessens the hazard and risk that he'll be killed... yet, the insurance will not pay it..

it's lawful.. but is it right?

starblue SG

laws are made to protect the welfare of selected groups of people. if you belong to the selected group, then wad is lawful will be wad is right. if you belong to the selected group's anti thesis, then wad is lawful will be wad is not right.

alas, humans crave peace and will fight for it.

« Previous Page