Moral Quandry

[Seldon2639]

If I remember correctly the original post clearly stated that there would be no consequences whatsoever. So lets be honest, are people fundamentally good? Fuck no. People are all utter scum who want to fuck everyone else over to better themselves. The only reason we do behave is because if we do not we get punished, either from the law or other people.
If I could go rape, murder, steal all I wanted with no fear of anyone harming me in return then hell yes because I do not deny my true nature. However even without the law I would not do these things because if I did I would have the families of my victims after my blood.
Plus as much as you claim those who admit to they would do bad things are just trying to prove how tough they are you are equally proving yourself to be full of shit. Everyone is going around killing and raping non stop and you really think you would stand up to them? Trust me, you would lock yourself in your home and piss your pants praying they don't decide to come after you.

Well, that's where the question I'm posing comes in. Logically, both situations are untenable, since no one would leave at all. Even the people who would rape and murder would be too scared of being murdered themselves by like-minded individuals.

And, no, the original poster said there was no "law", but if there's no "law" there's nothing to stop anyone from trying to stop someone else.

It's entirely possible that you're right, that if presented with the situation, my reaction (and that of even those who agreed that they would try to prevent chaos and violence) might be to hide, but that's not really the point. My question was more whether there were other people who's initial reaction wasn't "oh, I can do anything I want", but rather "oh, crap, I need to stop other people from doing whatever they want". You're of the opinion that *all* people are scum, but then how do you account for me, and for the people like me?

And, given that there'd be no organized "killing and raping" group (it'd implode, since everyone would just kill and rape each other), an organized group of people policing would be rather effective. In point of fact, that's how the normal police work. If the murderers all worked together, the police would be overwhelmed. But, since the murderers, rapists, and thieves are (generally) dispersed, and the majority of the population just acts normally, I think we'd have a shot, don't you?

 

[Lord George]

The only thing that stops me killing anyone I choose is the fear of reprisals from the law with that gone, I would quite happily take down as many people as I could systematically, I think I'd torture them first as well, like driving hot screws through them and then stringing them up like puppets, and if there's no law their nothing to stop me, I don't feel empathy for anyone around me and I have no fear of a God so why not satisfy an inner urge to run the streets with blood.

 

[Scarecrow38]

Personally I wouldn't go out of my way to do anything to anyone else in a physical sense but I might be inclined to do some shopping where everything is 100% off. I could use a few Plasma TVs... maybe a graphics card.

Overall though, I'd be keeping as low a profile as possible. Just because not everyone is as empathetic as me and I'm not brave enough to play the vigilante. You never know if some apathetic potential serial killer and torturer (defs not looking at the dude above me) lives near you.

 

[jimBOFH]

Well, if the government were to fall into a state of anarchy, no I would not go on a crazy killing spree.
However, if I were to suddenly become omnipotent, or at least immune to any and all consequences of my actions- might as well make use of it. I don't think I'd want to destroy society unnecessarily. Theft and world domination, maybe.

 

[Ultrarandom]

I myself wouldn't do either, I wouldn't stop people but I wouldn't go round committing what is currently unlawful. Id just try to live as normal as I could. Although, if anyone did piss me off to a point, Id probably kill them, but they'd have to get me rather pissed.

 

[DarkLordofDevon]

I might do a little pillaging or murder. If its only 24 hours, no sense letting this opportunity go to waste to get some new gear and some extra cash for when law kicks back in. Plus if I finally worked myself up I might kill a few of those 'people' that have caused me harm in the past.

After that I'd go into hiding until the 24 hours blew over since I have no desire to be killed. If it were to last longer, I'd find some more permanent resident out in the countryside where it would be safer.

It would be safe to assume the vast majority of the population would descend into chaos and being around others would not be wise.

 

[veloper]

24 hours is too short for much to happen. Most people would stay at home, because next day even if you wouldn't be punished for your crimes, you can say goodbye to your job, your friends, etc. because people would still remember what you did.
Only thugs and low-lifes would try to take advantage of this vacuum, but they would be limited by other people's freedom to retaliate any way they see fit.

Now in a long period of anarchy people will either die or join a gang.
Smart people will voluntarilly seek to serve a big bully, one who isn't a complete monster. A family can also function as a gang. Groups that can adequately defend themselves and acquire the necessary resources may survive.
New rules will be established immediately in anarchy, but these will apply only to members of the same gang.

 

[Jackson - Deathclaw]

I don't consider "Anarchy" a form of government because it never stays in place for long.

depending on your country, it last about the same

 

[sky14kemea]

id probably stay inside with a baseball bat just in case
seriously, if there are no laws im not going outside >_<

 

[P1p3s]

i think if there is a moral vacuum something is drawn in to fill the void, like you I would like to think I would have the strength of character to stand in the breach, not to enforce the laws of government or man, but to protect those who cannot protect themselves and to stand up for what is intrisically right

 

[Typhusoid]

I think I would gather those close to me (friends, family, e.t.c) work on keeping them safe, (while helping myself to a spot of looting of course)

 

[mark_n_b]

This is a tough question, and a lot of people have varying opinions of it.

Would all the people who are talking about going out and killing hundreds and taking over the world actually do it?

I'm guessing no, besides it being an impracticality (how many nation conquering warlords can you name that were not inhibited be legal structures? in all of human history only a handful) people are hard wired to not enjoy killing or harming other people. Even when it was a mass spectacle cautions were taken to make it less than grotesque (public hangings resulted in the hang-man's rope calculation that let executioners figure out hoe much rope was needed to snap a neck but not tear the head off because spectators found beheading unsettling)

As violent as video games are, most of the people on this forum could not handle viewing a surgical procedure. I doubt they'd kill en masse. And empathy prevents robbery and rape and the like (note: the only targets were stores or famous "unreal" personalities, never "my next door neighbour")

However: in a society functioning by different rules, different social norms begin to emerge. While killing at random may not become the norm, killing your wife who cheated on you or the drug dealer who won't give you a discount may become standard (American wild west), even now people justify crimes like stealing and rape, as such people will begin expecting that to be the norm and will more willing participate in those crimes as well as take a more active role in preventing them.

Then there is the idea that no man is an island and that people cannot function without other people. There is also the reality that in a system of multiple people unless there is mutually understood boundaries, that system will self destruct. You need laws, whether they are written down or merely understood. Which is where legal enforcement came from. This results in the proof that working together makes the individual better than working apart. Adam Smith's invisible hand (and related)...

I could go on and on, but, in all fairness, this one topic is a graduate degree thesis in sociology.

The primary demographic on this forum is teens to twenty somethings, it is not something they have the experience or worldly wisdom to wrap their heads around completely (which is not a dig at youth, this is a hugely abstract and complex theoretical construct, it's one of those things that you can't really be expected to know)

 

[Meta Like That]

Yeah, there's too many factors to consider. Geography, personal history, social standing, economy, etc. If you're asking about living in a society like that, the answer you'll get from people here will be half-assed because they don't really know how a system like that would work. If anybody did, why the hell would they be posting here?

I like to think the Fallout franchise gives a decent atmosphere of how it would be like, sans Enclave. There would be lawful areas, where people can go on making a decent living, and lawless areas, where apparently all the sociopaths here would hang out and play Scrabble.

 

[Beffudled Sheep]

You would attempt to stop people from hurting others?
I have never heard that before.
If i could rape, murder, and steal with no chance of any consequences, I would.
It would be fun.