If you don't test it (or know that it's been tested by people you can trust on such matters) then it's not science. If you don't understand science it is likely that you won't have any concept of "scientific truth" or, more properly, "empirical fact".
You are missing the point. The point is that the "fact" is ACCEPTED, not that it is scientific or even true. This discussion is not about science or the English language, and this part of it is therefore irrelevant except insofar as the idiom adds to the overall discussion of morals, ethics, law and chaos.
This is just a side discussion that arose because I said that cultural beliefs may be perfectly irrational. I don't know if there can be irrational facts like there are irrational numbers but I'm sure that a fact and a belief are different things. You may believe in things because facts support it (science) or you may believe in things in spite of absence of factual evidence (faith, superstition, etc.)
The latter is called irrational belief, no matter how accepted it is by a given society or culture.
He said "chaotic", not "chaotic good".
Chaotic good is one of the three (or two if we only count the extremes) of chaotic alignment in D&D, right?
I do know that there are evil laws, but I maintain that you have yet to give an example of one.
I wouldn't like to because this discussion would get political probably. But if you know that they do exist, that's enough.
"All first-born sons must be thrown into the river" is an evil law. It applies to the general populace, who are expected to follow it.
"If you don't throw your first-born son into the river, you will face seven years of torture" is not an evil law. It is evil, yes, but it is a CONSEQUENCE of breaking the law. Further, it is carried out by the authorities, not by the general populace.
A good hypothetical (and politically neutral) example indeed. Appreciated.
I understand that all the aspects of the law, including the consequences are one. And such a regime would expect from its denizens to be accomplice of the law, and the denizens would in some cases at least, report those who breach such law because either they are lawful, evil or lawful evil. A lawful good character would have a dilemma in this case, while a chaotic good would not.
"You should give some of your surplus wealth to the poor" is a moral, and I think you will agree that it is good. It is not a law.
It is a law, however it is an ambiguous law, a generic principle without any clear consequences (though guess you can go to Hell and/or be criticized by your neighbors if you don't at least appear to comply).
But a lot of the morals is much more rigid and the Ten Commandments are a good example ("thou shall", "thou shall not"), even if they don't provide as such other punishments than Godly ire. But if you live in a society where such morals are dominant such as ancient Judah or Medieval Europe, you can expect more mundane punishments, specially if you are a powerless commoner.
"You must give 10% of your income to the state welfare department for redistribution to the poor" is a law. It is inspired by the moral, which is good, but whether it is itself good is up for debate. It is not a moral.
I'm starting to wonder if you are a lawyer...
"If you fail to give to charity, you will be torn to pieces by wild animals" is a consequence of failing to follow the moral mentioned earlier. I would say that it is evil, even though it punishes those who do not follow the path of goodness indicated by the moral. It is, by itself, not a law.
No. This is a law, even if a badly written, ambiguous, somewhat Orwellian one (doesn't go into specifics: how much is enough to be spared such a punishment?).
By the way, remember that Orwell's anti-utopia did not have any single written law: but it had de facto laws which were "morals" (evil morals) of sorts and terrible punishments applied to those who breached them.
Not all laws need to be written in clear terms and in fact in the Middle Ages they most often were not (customs, usages, traditions). Also all modern legal systems I know of acknowledge some validity to custom, which is morals (certainly by etymology), specially where the law says nothing. There's no clear-cut division between law and tradition, and certainly was not the case in Middle Ages or other pre-modern societies.
I think that as long as someone adheres to any code of behaviour, that person has a claim to being called "lawful"; whether he is or is not "lawful" then depends on how closely he adheres to that code.
Everybody has a code of behavior of some sort, either internalized or imposed by society or, more commonly, both (convergent or in conflict). However the public code (law) is generally more clear cut, while the private code is more intuitive and a matter of principles rather than strict laws.
This reminds me of the distinction that some of my Chinese acquaintances made between guilt (internalized) and shame (social only). However I disagree with them in their claim of moral internalization only happening in the Judaic ("Western") cultural/religious sphere with the concept of sin, I rather think that it is something that all societies try to imbue to their young ones one way or another.
A pirate who adheres strictly to an established pirates' code is lawful, especially if (or, more likely, "ONLY if") he would rather make a significant loss than depart from the code; he is very likely to be hailed as an honourable "gentleman pirate".
But only among pirates...
Your story of witnessing to a false wedding, in order to give an illegal immigrant a better life? I would describe that as "moral but unethical".
For me is ethical but unlawful (unless you consider the "law of friendship" and the "law of solidarity", which are more like vague principles). I don't have morals: I rejected them all as I stopped being a kid. I was very radical on that, so I'm pretty confident. If I have any moral remnant it's a sticky nightmare, not something I value but something I haven't been able to destroy.
A fake marriage is immoral for Catholic values (in which I was raised), even a civil marriage (as it was) was perceived as immoral by my fanatic mother and many others in her entourage.