In a world without laws would you be an evil person?

[noname223]

From time to time I stream animes let's say in a grey area. I watch soccer with my VPN to bypass geoblocking. I also bypass paywalls of newspapers.

I still think these aren't evil actions. I don't have much money and I worry so much about money. I pay for some anime, I pay for some journalism. And in the past I paid a lot for soccer. I also don't want to support everything.

In a world without laws I imagine Thukydides would be right. "The strong Do what they can and the weak suffer what they must". I would be the first target probably. I would probably have to act opportunistic to survive. Or I would kill myself pretty early if barbiturates were unregulated. It is hard to imagine a world without laws, and which implications this would have. I am not sure whether I would change my morals much. There is also the question would I be Born in a world without laws which would change a lot. Or whether let's say starting next friday All laws will become irrelevant

I don't have it in me to fight. Especially, not physically. My clan aka my family had to defend me. Maybe some families of friends could join the Clan. But with a lack of antipsychotic Mediation insanity would be only a matter of Time. I am a hoarder though. I am not sure how Germany would look like without laws. We don't have militias. And only a few people own guns. The US would be more chaotic I assume.

 

[WhatCouldHaveBeen32]

From time to time I stream animes let's say in a grey area. I watch soccer with my VPN to bypass geoblocking. I also bypass paywalls of newspapers.

Heinous stuff, how can you sleep at night?

No, I wouldn't be evil, laws are not the reason I'm not evil in the first place.

Although if you could read in the minds of most people on earth, you'd quickly get depressed knowing what their answer to this question really is. Some are already just saying it on social media platforms. To be rapists and murderers everywhere.

 

[underairpressure]

The law has nothing to do with morality, frankly. Only about control and regulation. Though I guess it's still an interesting question of how a lack of laws would influence your actions.

I'd say Thucydides is already right. The "strong" are often the ones who get to make (and choose how to enforce) the laws, and the weak/disadvantaged already suffer. The law has never served to help or protect the weak, not really.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Forever Sleep]

I don't have the desire to do really bad stuff. I'd probably be about as average as I am now. Not all good, not all bad. I had quite a strict upbringing though. I still live by maybe the majority of what I was taught. Not just in terms of legality but in terms of manners and courtesy. I do still slip up though.

I suspect a lot gets established in our upbringing though. So- maybe that's the bigger question. How morally virtuous would your parents have been without rules? How 'good' would they expect you to be? We're formed by our parents and society. Presumably, if that were more lawless, we would be too.

Genetically though, I'm more of a shy, timid person in real life, so- I doubt I'd do well in a lawless society.

 

[Unlucky777]

Laws or not, inherently good people would inherently be good people. Some people have morals and values and some don't. Even that is all up to personal interpretation and application.

Having said that, I would strive to do the right thing in every situation so that I won't ever have a guilty conscience

 

[Macedonian1987]

In a world without laws I would kill as many bullies as i can. I will gladly become serial killer of bullies. Nobody will miss the bullies anyways.

 

[instormdrains]

Even with laws I think all humans are evil. Predation and depravity are in our nature. I think that without laws very evil people would make the world a lot worse and then based on our surroundings people will get desperate and become worse. Kinda like in an apocalypse movie or something

 

[amor.dor]

I wouldn't be any different than I am now, but in a lawless world I would probably kill myself immediately, because I know that people desperate to live commit any atrocity against others, and I have no reason to let them do that to me. I'm already detached from life, so I have no reason to fight or hurt others, and I live only out of mere curiosity; death is just a sip of poison away.

 

[orvreader]

It'd probably be easier to find killers in that world, so I'd just ask them to kill me, doesn't matter what they do before the kill as long as it's not massively painful, it'd be some sort of retribution for my existence; but for what the thread is actually about: no, I'd have no reasons to be evil. In the first place, I've never thought about laws when considering my morality; and even without laws, guilt and regret would still exist, so it wouldn't be too different for me.

 

[Dejected 55]

In a world without laws, is there such a thing as an evil person? How would you define it? Without laws, everyone is permitted to do anything they want... so I don't see how anyone could be labelled as evil.

I would be pretty much the same person I am now... but that's because laws aren't the reason I'm not doing the societal-defined bad things. I don't do the bad things because I don't want to do them.

 

[maylurker]

evil person? How would you define it?

violent person

 

[martyrdom]

Mikhail Bakunin Reference Archive

 

[Chocomel]

Even with laws, some people are still doing evil things. Which makes me scared as hell as to what happen is that barrier is just completely gone, cus laws rn is acting like some kind of barriers

 

[ForeverSubhuman]

No I'd be more vigilant but I'd be the same person I am right now. Laws are just words on a document anyway.

 

[sanctionedusage]

no but id probably be dead

 

[M19R]

If someone needs laws not to do evil things then they already are an evil person. If the olny thing stopping you from raping and killing or whatever is the legal consequences then probably you were just never a good person in the first place

 

[Dejected 55]

violent person

What about sports like boxing or football that are definitely violent? People die playing those sports even. Then there are people with BDSM kinks who are into varying degrees of violence. Not even trying to be argumentative... but in the real world we live in now, a LOT of violence is not only tolerated but even desired in certain instances... so in a world where there are no laws and everything is permitted, I still find it logically hard to label anything as definitively evil. IF something were agreed to be evil, then surely there would be a law against it, no?

If someone needs laws not to do evil things then they already are an evil person. If the olny thing stopping you from raping and killing or whatever is the legal consequences then probably you were just never a good person in the first place

Exactly this. A close cousin to this is... If the rules don't apply when no one is watching, then they never apply. I say a corollary to this for some religious people I have known who are only obeying their faith because of fear of punishment from their God. I argue that if the only reason you are not doing bad things is because you don't want God to punish you, then you are not a good person.

 

[FoxSauce]

I dont think it would change anything with or without, is the same the only thing will change as people will more bold as they wouldnt be held accountable.


Myself really no I mean what for

 

[maylurker]

What about sports like boxing or football that are definitely violent? People die playing those sports even. Then there are people with BDSM kinks who are into varying degrees of violence. Not even trying to be argumentative... but in the real world we live in now, a LOT of violence is not only tolerated but even desired in certain instances... so in a world where there are no laws and everything is permitted, I still find it logically hard to label anything as definitively evil. IF something were agreed to be evil, then surely there would be a law against it, no?

your philosophy is pure whataboutism, cherry-picking and your conclusioin is weak relativist conclusion. original point was about non-consensual violence causing unwanted suffering to innocents and bringing up tolerated exceptions doesnt erase the evil of forcing harm on the unwilling. sex with consent is fine (even celebrated) sex without consent is rape and evil. the existence of consensual sex doesnt make rape okay. we all intuitively know the difference - punching a willing opponent in a ring isnt the same as punching a stranger on the street. society tolerates the former precisely because its not victimizing innocents. laws reflect societal consensus on whats evil enough to prohibit but theyr imperfect and vary by culture/time like slavery was once legal. in a lawless world absence of universal law doesnt make murder good. it just removes enforcement. if tolerated violence means nothing is evil then even murder could be excused if some group 'desires' it. but we reject that because harming innocents without consent is wrong regardless of examples.

 

[Dejected 55]

your philosophy is pure whataboutism, cherry-picking and your conclusioin is weak relativist conclusion. original point was about non-consensual violence causing unwanted suffering to innocents and bringing up tolerated exceptions doesnt erase the evil of forcing harm on the unwilling. sex with consent is fine (even celebrated) sex without consent is rape and evil. the existence of consensual sex doesnt make rape okay. we all intuitively know the difference - punching a willing opponent in a ring isnt the same as punching a stranger on the street. society tolerates the former precisely because its not victimizing innocents. laws reflect societal consensus on whats evil enough to prohibit but theyr imperfect and vary by culture/time like slavery was once legal. in a lawless world absence of universal law doesnt make murder good. it just removes enforcement. if tolerated violence means nothing is evil then even murder could be excused if some group 'desires' it. but we reject that because harming innocents without consent is wrong regardless of examples.

This whole thread is whataboutism!

The question posed is "in a world without laws would you be an evil person?" And I merely posit that if there are no laws then how could you define what is evil? IF you think a thing is evil, why would you not have a law against it? Does this lawless world celebrate evil or merely permit it? Why would a society knowingly encourage evil by not passing laws discouraging it?

My point is... in the hypothetical world that has no laws... then there is no such thing as good or evil as our society defines it. In the real world, when we all agree on a thing being evil, we make laws prohibiting it and attempt to find and punish transgressors. We aren't perfect about it, but we at least try. In the hypothetical no-law world, the only reason to not have laws is because everyone (or at least the majority) agrees that it is fine for people to do whatever they want whether anyone else wants it done or not.

There are literally no rules in a lawless world. That's the point.

Now, if the question was "would you do things that are currently considered evil in a world without laws?" That's a question you can answer, as I already have, by saying that I would behave no differently than I do now because the laws aren't preventing me from doing bad things... I don't do bad things because I don't believe in doing them, whether society would allow me to or not. But the question was simply would you be evil in a world without laws... and I posit that in a world without laws there is no good or evil... merely actions... for if anyone thought a thing was evil, why would they allow it to continue without laws?

 

[DeathByBananabread]

When I was a kid I played the Sims & Scribblenauts & scared my parents with how far I'd go out of my way to torture the characters for my amusement. I was also the type of kid to feel sad over things like worms on a hot sidewalk & would sometimes take the time to save the un-baked ones.

Anyways, sometimes I feel like I already live in a world without laws, except for ones protecting private property. And in this world I think I'm a mediocre person.

 

[maylurker]

My point is... in the hypothetical world that has no laws... then there is no such thing as good or evil as our society defines it. In the real world, when we all agree on a thing being evil, we make laws prohibiting it and attempt to find and punish transgressors. We aren't perfect about it, but we at least try. In the hypothetical no-law world, the only reason to not have laws is because everyone (or at least the majority) agrees that it is fine for people to do whatever they want whether anyone else wants it done or not.

you're totally missing my point though. evil isnt defined just by the existence of laws. we can identify it objectively thru human biology and evolved intuitions that are universal across cultures and time. humans are wired by evolution to experience certain acts as 100% wrong because they directly harm our survival, well-being, and reproductive success. non-consensual violence like assault, murder, rape triggers intense repulsion in almost every healthy person because we're biologically programmed to recoil from unwanted suffering inflicted on ourselves or our kin. empathy, the pain response to seeing innocents harmed, and the moral disgust toward violators are neurological realities like amygdala activation etc that exist independent of any legality. thats why even in lawless scenarios for example war zones people still form special rules against murder and rape because those acts are intuitively evil to us as a species. no one needs a statute to know that beating an innocent child or forcing sex on someone is wrong. the victims suffering and our empathetic response scream it. laws just formalize and enforce what biology and reason already tell us - harming non-consenting innocents is evil. ur deflection "well in a world without laws nothing is prohibited therefore nothing is evil" confuses permission with morality. absence of enforcement doesnt erase the objective harm. a world without laws won't mean "everyone agrees murder is fine". it would basiclly mean powerful people can murder without consequence while the rest still recognize it as evil and resist it when they can.

 

[Dejected 55]

you're totally missing my point though. evil isnt defined just by the existence of laws. we can identify it objectively thru human biology and evolved intuitions that are universal across cultures and time. humans are wired by evolution to experience certain acts as 100% wrong because they directly harm our survival, well-being, and reproductive success. non-consensual violence like assault, murder, rape triggers intense repulsion in almost every healthy person because we're biologically programmed to recoil from unwanted suffering inflicted on ourselves or our kin. empathy, the pain response to seeing innocents harmed, and the moral disgust toward violators are neurological realities like amygdala activation etc that exist independent of any legality. thats why even in lawless scenarios for example war zones people still form special rules against murder and rape because those acts are intuitively evil to us as a species. no one needs a statute to know that beating an innocent child or forcing sex on someone is wrong. the victims suffering and our empathetic response scream it. laws just formalize and enforce what biology and reason already tell us - harming non-consenting innocents is evil. ur deflection "well in a world without laws nothing is prohibited therefore nothing is evil" confuses permission with morality. absence of enforcement doesnt erase the objective harm. a world without laws won't mean "everyone agrees murder is fine". it would basiclly mean powerful people can murder without consequence while the rest still recognize it as evil and resist it when they can.

I think maybe we are just crossing wires here.

What I'm saying is that laws enacted by humans in society are reflective and representative of all the things you just wrote about having a moral compass and believing certain things are evil.

In a proposed hypothetical world where there are no laws, why would that be? How would a moral society NOT have laws? Given our human history, it stands to reason that any civilization made up of people with a moral compass and concepts of good and evil would necessarily enact laws to curb the evil behavior. Thus, to my thinking, any world that evolved a society without laws must not have a concept of good or evil either.

Now, having said that... A utopian society where everyone is good and is always good to each other wouldn't need laws... because everyone is doing the right thing. Such a world wouldn't even have a concept of evil because no evil would have ever existed. Similarly, in a world where people just slaughter regularly and think nothing of it, they wouldn't define what they are doing as evil either, it just is the way of things. The trickier one is a world where some people kill people for fun and other people never do anything to harm each other. Arguably in *that* world you have good and evil, but if there are no laws then the majority of people haven't made any... and I don't know how they would parse behavior. Would they see the evil people as evil or just different?

The reality is... as you have said... most people do have a sense of good and evil, and most of us have a lot of things we agree on objectively as being good or evil without argument. I don't think beings such as humans could actually exist as we know it in a world without laws, because of the implication that either there is no good or evil or that all things are seen as relatively equal.

 

[X-sanguinate86]

I can see myself having killed the odd bully in the past in a lawless world. Hard to be sure though because I am, after all, a weak coward.

 

[maylurker]

I think maybe we are just crossing wires here.

What I'm saying is that laws enacted by humans in society are reflective and representative of all the things you just wrote about having a moral compass and believing certain things are evil.

In a proposed hypothetical world where there are no laws, why would that be? How would a moral society NOT have laws? Given our human history, it stands to reason that any civilization made up of people with a moral compass and concepts of good and evil would necessarily enact laws to curb the evil behavior. Thus, to my thinking, any world that evolved a society without laws must not have a concept of good or evil either.

Now, having said that... A utopian society where everyone is good and is always good to each other wouldn't need laws... because everyone is doing the right thing. Such a world wouldn't even have a concept of evil because no evil would have ever existed. Similarly, in a world where people just slaughter regularly and think nothing of it, they wouldn't define what they are doing as evil either, it just is the way of things. The trickier one is a world where some people kill people for fun and other people never do anything to harm each other. Arguably in *that* world you have good and evil, but if there are no laws then the majority of people haven't made any... and I don't know how they would parse behavior. Would they see the evil people as evil or just different?

The reality is... as you have said... most people do have a sense of good and evil, and most of us have a lot of things we agree on objectively as being good or evil without argument. I don't think beings such as humans could actually exist as we know it in a world without laws, because of the implication that either there is no good or evil or that all things are seen as relatively equal.

i see. i explained most of it but again you assume laws are the only way moral people can actually hold back bad behavior. but loads of small tribes rely way more on norms, reputation, shame, reciprocity, and mutual aid than on formal laws or cops. morality doesnt need state-backed rules to exist. laws are one tool societies sometimes use but not proof that morality exists. you can have strong shared senses of good/evil without any statutes at all. history and anthropology back that up.

 

[GreaterThanLessThan]

Actions are subliminally influenced by honour. Bystanding the consequences of your actions and seeing the effects it has on people would be a "breach of honour". If I knew for certain I will be able to get away with something and not have to deal with or even witness the aftermath, I'd be "evil" (I guess a better term would be "unprincipled", but I'm digressing). The weight of seeing the turmoil emanating from your actions (or even the mere thought of it) is what substantiates people's moral code.

 

[LittleSunshine]

No, then I could have been that way already, the laws wouldn't stop me from doing so.

 

[dead dav]

No way I would probably end up being killed as I'm a gentle person I could never kill