>Where did I say I wanted an argument for why it is wrong?
In your first response.
>Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this.
First, this defeats the purpose of law. Everyone has their own beliefs. Imagine what would happen if everyone started selectively obeying the laws that are compatible with their beliefs. Believe me there is quite a diversity of belief systems out there.
Secondly, those many people that would say yes, should try to change the law instead of ignoring it. I can also accept a code of ethics that accepts ignoring the law, as long as it waives the rights given by law.
Imagine what would happen if everyone started selectively obeying the laws that are compatible with their beliefs.
Normal people and police do this every single day with usually little ill effect. Police are not obligated to pursue every instance of a violation they see, a person is in theory obligated to follow every applicable law, but in practice, they do not (and the sheer volume of law ensures that it's impossible anyways), and the world hasn't come crashing down.
The idea that ignoring wrong or inconvenient laws leads to social collapse rings quite hollow, in light of that.
If we treat all laws as equal because they are the law, then a person who drives over the speed limit has logically done just as bad as someone who kills another.
Can we agree that this suggestion is absurd on its face?
If we instead acknowledge that some laws are more important than others, the more difficult question has to be asked "what defines that importance?", which logically means that there are some laws that are not that important at all, who's violation has little to no negative societal impact. Like going a mile over the speed limit.
Or more to the point of this discussion, like downloading a movie from your favorite torrent site.
If morals drive laws and not the other way around, the moral consensus seems to be shifting towards the fact that copyright infringement is morally neutral, or at least not that bad, on the same level as going a mile over the speed limit. It's technically illegal, you could be made an example out of if someone really wants to, but the chances of that happening are all but nonexistent.
I agree. My point is that there is a separation between the morality value of the isolated action and the morality value of the action in the context of a law. If we disconnect those two, we have a potential problem caused by "metamorality": We give sound reasoning for anyone to disconnect them too. Who's to say that our moral laws are better or worse than others? Consensus? Then how do we establish the consensus? I think by creating laws. And if we see a great deviation from what we see as "right" or "wrong" and the law, we should then try to change the law. Law is the metalanguage of that consensus you are talking about. Without law, there still is a consensus, but you dont have any means of presenting it, thus rendering it invisible to those who don't see it. In other words, when someone with opposite moral values acts in direct conflict with yours, law is the only thing that gives you a way to prevent those actions. What else could you say to them? After all, they have their own consensus in their minds. And of course, they could choose to ignore the law. You see?
Should we ignore those laws that codify the opposite of our beliefs? Many people would say yes. Many of our heroes are lionized for doing this.