Have PD35 and Vatican Saying 7 been straw-manned?

I have no ability to add anything to your parsing of the Greek, but I strongly agree with the direction you are going in each of your evaluations.

1 - Certainly we are going to sometimes break the law - that's inherent in the full analysis of how justice is contextual andchanges over time. When something becomes unjust, you aren't going to wait for the next procedural permission-granting to consider the situation unjust and act on that consideration. Sure you have to take into consideration who has power and how they may punish you, but we're talking philosophy and justice, and there's no cosmic enforcement mechanism that would convert "the law" into something any more than it is - a social structure among living people.

2 - Certainly Epicurus would not consider "all sins to be equal" such that stealing a DVD when you are six years old leads to a life of torment.

Any readings which would go in the opposite direction from your thoughts would be highly suspect.

Quote from Eikadistes

τὸν λάθρα τι κινοῦντα.

Quote from wbernys

τὸν λάθρῃ τι ποιοῦντα

"τὸν λάθρα τι κινοῦντα = the one secretly moving [i.e., doing] something”

vs

"τὸν λάθρῃ τι ποιοῦντα = the one doing something in secret”

Editors use both, they really have the same meaning.

Quote from wbernys

Did Epicurus claim that any single act of injustice (no matter how small) ruins a life through constant anxiety unless caught or turning oneself in, or is he primarily targeting those who engage in injustice as a recurring pattern or stable trait being filled with fear because they constantly violate the pact?

To your original question above: I'm concluding (perhaps from ingnorance) that these PDs and VSs as well as interpretations of Epicurus' meanings are generally focused on why you shouldn't do unlawful or unjust acts that are immoral is because you won't be able to live happily since the pain will outweigh the pleasure of feeling good about yourself.

I can't get away from a belief that laws and morals are not REALLY established by social compact. Obedience to laws is by social compact, but the laws are not created that way. They are established by those who have power withinof the community by lineage, or military or economic might. Is there an objection that in a democratic system that can't happen? I hope a comparative study of power politics today, will show that power was exercised in Epicurus' time too by virtue of power exercised by wealth etc in the same way. THEREFORE a discussion of just or unjust laws is missing the point within this discussion topic.

Lastly, I've always taken this PD 35 with a measure of salt. Our mental power of rationalizing allows us to violate every law we've ever violated. And our capacity to forget over time, allows us to suffer less and less over time. And don't forget the concept of self foregiveness which itself is a major factor in it's use or abuse. I'm not in favor of saying people are evil or stupid for thinking they can get away with it. But I think if you balance the real and potential pleasures of life actions against the real and potential pains of one's actions in life, that is still powerfully within Epicurus' message.

DaveT, I agree. Legal is not the same as just. Many harmful actions can be committed without much fear if the perpetrator has enough power or protection.

Quote from DaveT

I can't get away from a belief that laws and morals are not REALLY established by social compact. Obedience to laws is by social compact, but the laws are not created that way. They are established by those who have power withinof the community by lineage, or military or economic might.

I might have said some of what Dave said differently, but I think this part I quoted is especially correct. Some laws may actually be by compact but the evolution of the laws as set out by Lucretius makes clear that force has always been a factor and is a factor that never really goes away no matter how much we might like it to do so. if we perceive that there is no actual thread of someone punishing us for committing a crime, that's going to make a big difference, and I presume that's why Epicurus says that such circumstances (as when we are confident we won't ever be discovered) pose more difficult questions.

One thing is for sure - there are no supernatural forces that will punish us, so there have to be real-world factors in play to cause us real concern.

I agree with most of what Wbernys writes in comment #10. It seems most politicians in top government positions are psychopaths. They have no empathy, neither for their future selves, nor for anyone else, and appear to lack the ability of having a bad conscience. That should limit their fear and the impact on their happiness. Most of the struggle to maintain their power seems to be pleasurable to them. They become paranoid about losing their power when they lose the stamina to keep up the struggle in old age if they still want to stay at the top.

That might or might not be the case. I thought about this in analogy to my own experience with math. Probably, most people do not like to solve math problems. Math nerds may get pleasure out of the struggle to solve a math problem. I know that because I used to be one in my youth. In the (rare) case of not finding the solution, there was no euphoria, but the attempt was nevertheless pleasurable.

Possessing power is clearly harmful to the extent that it brings increased stress and dangers. However, possessing power is clearly beneficial to the extent that it can be used to provide security and stability.

ΚΔ 7: "Some people want to become respected and popular, thinking to preserve for themselves stability from people in this way. If the life of those like this is stable: then they fully acquire the good of nature. However, if it is not stable, then they do not possess that which they craved from the beginning according to what is naturally compatible to them."

ΚΔ 14: "...stability from people is produced to some extent by a resistant force and resourcefulness..."

Many people like the idea that the powerful person who harms other people will inevitably come to a bad end.... if not in this life, then at least in the next. But, very often, powerful people are convinced they are living "prudently and correctly and justly" in relation to their group -- and many are able to live a stable and pleasurable life even if there is a trail of victims (from a different group) behind them.

While it is true that "What is just by nature exists as that which is of mutual interest among what mutually benefits in not harming each other and not being harmed. (ΚΔ 31)" Epicurus is clear that this justice is not universally applicable:

ΚΔ 32 "As many among the living beings as do not have the ability to make mutual agreements for themselves (those regarding not harming one another and not being harmed) regarding these things, in no way are they just or unjust, and likewise also as many among the ethnicities as do not have the ability or do not want to make mutual agreements for themselves regarding not harming and not being harmed."

Quote from Bryan

ΚΔ 32 "As many among the living beings as do not have the ability to make mutual agreements for themselves (those regarding not harming one another and not being harmed) regarding these things, in no way are they just or unjust, and likewise also as many among the ethnicities as do not have the ability or do not want to make mutual agreements for themselves regarding not harming and not being harmed."

I'm probably missing something here.

But in that case if we average folk are among what he called ethnicities, what are our obligations when it comes to dealing with others?

And how about obeying laws coming down from on high in modern day USA. For example, me (hypothetically) paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than (insert any billioniaire's name)? I never consented to that inequality. Should I worry about being unjust to my neighbors if I'm tempted avoid paying some of my taxes illegally? Should I not be anxious if I'm willing to do the time if I commit the crime?

Perhaps an absurd question in the real world

Quote from DaveT

For example, me (hypothetically) paying a higher percentage of my income in taxes than (insert any billioniaire's name)? I never consented to that inequality.

Did you agree with this billionaire that you would pay equal percentages of your income in taxes?

Quote from DaveT

Should I worry about being unjust to my neighbors if I'm tempted avoid paying some of my taxes illegally?

Did you make some kind of agreement with your neighbors that you would each pay a certain amount of taxes?

Quote from DaveT

Should I not be anxious if I'm willing to do the time if I commit the crime?

Despite what people may say when they're angry, I think the sober answer is that most people would not be willing to do the time. It would mean risking your freedom in exchange for a few % more dollars. That doesn't sound very Epicurean.