Should You Obey the Law? – Philosophy Tube

1. 

   @LeeAtterberry-m9n

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   But you got to remember obeying the law keeps you at a very defensive disadvantage

2. 

   @WhomstoeverIsAStupidWord

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   Just clicked on this and am predicting you’re going to bring up Kant

   Edit: good. fuck Kant

3. 

   @notashton.

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   No

4. 

   @IAmVenix

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   Anarchism is correct and based

5. 

   @andorimaxhorgellion

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   Abigail saying she wants to make an episode about vaccines and talk about Stuart Mill
   6 years later: She makes an episode about vaccines and talks about Stuart Mill

6. 

   @LogicGated

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   Anarchism Andy

7. 

   @vhawk1951kl

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   Moral or morally meaning what?

   Nobody knows- or at the very least cannot say.
   All this talk of morals is simply religion: Any set of related unquestioned beliefs assumptions presumptions norms and preconceptions not necessarily making any reference to the Mr God fantasy which is neither sufficient nor necessary for any set of related unquestioned beliefs assumption presumptions norms and preconceptions to qualify as religion which is a psychological phenomenon

8. 

   @agedejong7693

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   people under the age of 18 by law can`t consent (or vote),
   therefore they can`t consent to be governed. (by the gov`s own logic)
   if a 14 year old starts a great new website and makes 250K a year can the government tax him? i think not because he did not consent and has no say in how the money is spent.
   if he pays no taxes can he still call the taxpayer funded police on a criminal that wrongs him? assuming the crimminal is an adult he has the right to vote.
   do you pay for the police to protect you or to keep you in check? if you pay to protect you the kid does not pay taxes so no he can`t call the cops.
   but tourist can call the cops on a robber they come even if the tourist pays no taxes in their country. funny how every politician sais the cops are paid to protect you.

   but what of a housefire where there is no other party involved, just lightning, can he still call the fire department he did not pay for? (should he be billed for their work after they resued him?

   the government is probably gonna be hypocritical and tax him annyway. (even worse for the USA with their no taxation without representation)

9. 

   @degenerate82

   February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

   Man's law is illegitimate since man has no legitimate authority over any other man, period. Yes, that means governments are ALL illegitimate. The ONLY law is do not harm or aggress upon anyone with violence.

10. 

    @The_Brainsturgeon

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    I'm not only pro tanto, I'm also pro wakazashi, pro katana, and pro nōdashi.

11. 

    @lordbuss

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    9:26 Biological women. The fact that some people are women biologically is not transphobic and doesn't negate their identity and freedom to be whatever they want.

12. 

    @avaraxxblack5918

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    4:14 So any kind of "consent" that doesn't require your actual consent lol. Convenient isn't it. The same consent slaves gave.

13. 

    @gofar5185

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    vaccination or epidemic situations… in china dynasties, they use military forces to barricade acute infected populaces and STOP travelling to other non-acute infected populaces… and non-acute populaces are DISALLOWED to go to acute infected populaces… until treatment for the ongoing epidemic is found… at the end of epidemic times, pooulaces acknowledge the sensible actions of ruling dynasty leaders in putting them to their senses in protecting and preserving the lives of non-infected… soldiers are sent even to remotest places and other east asia remote people to give the herbs for planting in the mountains that could treat/cure so and so epidemics… china civilization is known even to nomads of remote places because soldiers and enlightened people are sent out by dynasties to teach and plant the herbal plant/s… LOGIC: treating everyone is treating the whole… teaching the treatment to everyone is treatment to the WHOLE…

14. 

    @gofar5185

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    smoking…? it is said decades ago that commies bombed a cigarette factory in china…

15. 

    @gofar5185

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    decades ago of the emergence of aids disease… it is said that in thailand, a buddhist monk got infected with the aids disease… the buddhist temple did is set up health care for all aids victims… secular healthcares have their own preconditions…

16. 

    @gofar5185

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    kindly allow me… parents has the right to speak for a minor by secular law… kahlil gibran/the propht say: your children are not your children… they are the sons and daughters of the universe… you(parents) can give your love… but not your (parents) thoughts… for they (children) have their own thoughts…

17. 

    @gofar5185

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    one very explicit example of political obligation… moscow russia is legitimate CUSTODIAN to all soviet peoples and lands… it is the political obligation of moscow russia to WORK OUT STOPPING MILITARY RUINAGE in azerbaijan and armenia…

18. 

    @thehighnoonsaloon7794

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    For anarchy!

19. 

    @gabriel_kyne

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    I was dying when you recited the Hume quote 😂

20. 

    @SoYeahChrisCrafts

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Omg OLLY!!!!!! How old were you in this video? 😁

21. 

    @Yo-yx8wo

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    There are no objective moral obligations, morality is subjective

22. 

    @gmchessplay9043

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    I think laws are simply the agreed upon moral code for a particular group of people. The way you exercise your morality is in a way collaborative with how strictly you obey the law. It’s more or less an updated moral compass. This is why it’s very important. If you know the laws of the land, then you know the ways in which way you can and cannot conduct yourself, in very astute terms. To assume there are very strict moral codes for all human beings would be a great assumption indeed.

23. 

    @joneelillard892

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Upvote for Scottish accent

24. 

    @Sardinianconservative

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Now there's no anarchism. There's just anarchy

25. 

    @KarolaTea

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    11:55 Well people are gonna die either way. It's just a question of how many of the dead people are smokers.
    RE: risky jobs: Someone's gotta do those jobs. (at least a lot of them.) So me not being a firefighter would just mean someone else takes that position (or, if nobody does, even more people get put at risk.) Which means it's kinda irrelevant who individually has the extra risk, we'll just have like 100 firefighters every year with lung problems. So it's Jones isn't competing with "Smith" but instead competing with "Firefighter" who didn't chose their inherent high risk either. (But for sports, yeah. Afaik porfessional sports people have extra insurance?)

26. 

    @ctyviolence3846

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    If your only reason for not shooting your neighbor in the face is because youll be punished your a terrible person and right and wrong are artificial constructs you should be your own morality and not the law

27. 

    @cashewmilkfan

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    this look like tape from olly's teen years

28. 

    @tictycjk7356

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Long live lgbtq i en a

29. 

    @agiar2000

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    I think that law and government serve very good practical purposes, though, like many powerful tools, they can also be abused. So, while I would not consider myself an "anarchist" in the typical sense of the word, I suppose I would consider myself a "philosophical anarchist" because I can imagine plenty of scenarios where not only is compliance with the law not morally obligatory, but actual defiance of the law may, in fact, be morally obligatory.
    For example, I think most people might agree that, day to day, in typical situations, it is better to comply with the law than not to. Even in small cases where I might personally prefer to do something prohibited by law (speeding, jaywalking, driving while uninsured), it is better for me to comply anyway, either for totally practical reasons or out of deference to the spirit of democracy and the rule of law. Then, however, we can get into totally different territory, such as if the law requires me to follow an order to harm someone, if I am legally ordered to harm innocent people, or something of that nature. I think most of us agree that a little civil disobedience, when judiciously applied, can be a very good thing for a society. American history, in particular, is rife with examples in the Revolutionary War, the Civil Rights Movement, and others.

30. 

    @jenh7547

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    nice scottish Hume accent!

31. 

    @ultramango1337

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    OH MY GOD YOUNG OLLIE IS SO DAMN CUTE IM GONNA DIE

32. 

    @alamedvav

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Damn Oily, whats going on with your complexion?

33. 

    @T.H.W.O.T.H

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Is Liberty what's left over once the Law has had its say?

34. 

    @cdabcdefg12345

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    only obey laws you agree with

35. 

    @Nulono

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Wow, even "women have babies" is un-PC now.

36. 

    @MrBsehratmaannking

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    A discussion I had with a friend without coming to a clear consensus was: By law, is the law a choice or an obligation? Any input would be welcome 😀

37. 

    @wanshimain

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    The background music is a nuisance

38. 

    @Kram1032

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    I think the legitimacy of states is mostly given to them by the people living in them, and possibly by foreign states as well. (There doesn't have to be an agreement on that front though. Some states may see others as illegitimate whereas those states' citizens see theirs as legitimate. Or vice-versa)
    I do not think that this legitimacy is in any way shape or form inherent in state-hood though. It's rather that, usually, there are big advantages to living in a state. It's a useful concept. If it outlives its usefulness to the people within it, it may well be overthrown.
    (This is unlikely, however. Sates usually come with a LOT of services that people in them happen to like. Also, that's unrelated to the legitimacy given to states by other states.)

    Really, I don't think legitimacy as such even exists in the first place. What makes something – anything – legitimate, is a usually rather vaguely held consensus. Or at the very least the appearance of consensus. (I have to wonder how often people on a large scale would tend agree that notion X should just go away but it never does because they just assume everybody else thinks differently…)

39. 

    @jesse_eg

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    you've grown up so much in the last 4 years

40. 

    @shadetreader

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Pregnancy isn’t going to be entirely voluntary in a cisheteropatriarchal society.

41. 

    @vathek5958

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Old video buuuut, social contract theory is presented in kinda a bad light here. Social contract theorists don’t believe that people actually agree to a contract, and most that I’m aware of don’t argue against Hume’s point of the problems with that kind of implicit contract. Rawls, building on Kant, argues that we recognise the need for social cooperation, and thereby the need for a theory of justice to underpin it. Rawls sets out this theory of justice, from which we can conclude that so long as a society confirms to this conception of justice, we have an obligation to obey its rules. Our agreement is not during life – either explicitly nor implicitly – but rather it is a fundamental agreement that we must have while we recognise the benefit of social cooperation (as any ‘rational’ person must).

42. 

    @saeedbaig4249

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    This reminds me of how Socrates, upon being sentenced to death, chose not to try and escape (partly) because (from Wikipedia):
    "Having knowingly agreed to live under the city's laws, he implicitly subjected himself to the possibility of being accused of crimes by its citizens and judged guilty by its jury."

    I guess an analogy might be that, if you are a guest in someone else's home, you're obligated to follow their house rules (e.g. no shoes on the carpet), even if you think their rules are stupid.

    Of course, there are valid objections to this line of reasoning, but just thought I'd mention.

43. 

    @lizlovely6591

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Oh my god, you are so young in this video and it is only 3 years old. Jesus. I also looked so young 3 years ago. Is it just the era we're living in or is that just how aging works?

44. 

    @aagantuk7370

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    And people stretch this reasoning to steal and lie about Jeans and Coke from Walmarts. Fuck off.

45. 

    @sietzevandeburgt681

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    So if the law makes the death penalty legal should I obey that law and kill another man ???
    should I obey a law that thales away your birth right to live and be here and makes life illegal ?
    So should I obey orders to kill all ? If shit hits the fan we need everyman to survive !
    And thrive again !!!

    I refuse to even if you force me start destroying all we have !!!
    if a government gives a soldier an order is the best way to carry out the order to burn down the house he lives in or should we think about a non violent option that includes everyone ???

    If a criminal can be turned around and have better insights than actually would that be a more hopeful thing than actually make them face death ??

    Can you actually say that a law that condems you’re enemy to death is making you more friends ??

    should we let the weapons producers go build space ships and not kill us all ?

    Is a space shuttle or ship not a very good example of a robotv

46. 

    @Snailman3516

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    Here's my argument for why we should obey the laws:

    People that don't obey any laws are a danger to those that do to such a degree that it is immoral to not obey any laws. If you want to change the set of laws that you are under, you only have two morally good options: find an entirely new set of laws(emigrate) or change the laws from within.

    The function of the laws are to provide harmony to the subjects of the law. Harmony in this context is freedom from crime, freedom from gross unfairness, widespread happiness, and to have as little burden as possible. If the law is unable/unwilling to address one or more of these issues, then the subjects have the right to rebellion. In Nazi Germany, the law was grossly unfair to the Jews, so they had a right to the Warsaw uprising. In America, the government in Britian posed too big of a burden on the Americans, giving the Americans the right to the American Revolution. I would argue there are people in the United States who have the right of rebellion. The Puerto Ricans as well as some native Americans, Hawaiians, and native Islanders who live in other American territories. I would argue African Americans do not have a right to rebellion because the government has responded and is in the process of responding to their grievances on gross unfairness, which are valid.

47. 

    @jan_kisan

    February 26, 2026 at 7:17 am

    3:02 A better question is: Under what circumstances does the state GET its legitimacy?
    My answer would be: only when it's your state, meaning the state of your class or of the class you consciously support.

Comments are closed.