Printable View
Laws are there for a reason, right? If we didn't have them, society would break down into anachy.
So, what about if a law is morally quesitonable? What if a law said that you must go out and hit women with sticks whenever they weren't covering their ankles in public?
What's the answer? :confused:
The fact is, no such laws exists. Laws passed are laws that are morally right
The laws are there to cater for the masses.
They don't take into account exceptional circumstances etc.
Just like teaching acting or drama and all that isn't really that important in teaching in schools.
Absolutely, yes.Quote:
Is it ever morally justifiable to break the law?
Imagining that laws only get passed when they are 'morally right' is pretty naive.
The law is a practical solution to a problem for which a better solution hasn't been found. It's far from perfect.
Short answer - Yes, with an 'if...'
Long answer - No, with a 'but...'
:)
OK first of all, I am only talking about the countries that have proper legal systems like the US, UK, etc.... I am not talking about muslim nations where women could be tortured and all
Name any law that u could jusity in breaking...
If it is justifiable to break it, then why have laws at all ?
If the laws says "don't drive through the red light" and you ignore it, then what is the use of the law ?
I'll use the classic example...Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
Name any law that u could jusity in breaking...
;)
Well, think of it this way..... I worked hard to make 5 loafs of bread and someone steals it from meQuote:
Originally posted by crptcblade
I'll use the classic example...Stealing a loaf of bread to feed your starving family.
;)
That’s a ridiculous example
I think I'm falling in love.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
Well, think of it this way..... I worked hard to make 5 loafs of bread and someone steals it from me
That’s a ridiculous example
:rolleyes:
Why steal ?
If you were to come to me and ask for food to help your starving family I would give it to you. You just have to ask, not steal.
Please direct all questions to my attorney...
I've shot a roe buck out of season.
Thats illegal.
It had been hit by a car and had its back crushed, it was going to die anyway, I just speeded it up.
I broke the law and would do it again.
Well in that case, a jury would decide whether what u did was legal or not....Quote:
Originally posted by GlenW
I've shot a roe buck out of season.
Thats illegal.
It had been hit by a car and had its back crushed, it was going to die anyway, I just speeded it up.
I broke the law and would do it again.
Wally, you asked why have laws at all.
Well, the laws serve a purpose. They are pretty good at what they do, overall, but they are not perfect. When they are clearly imperfect, it is not unreasonable to break them, so long as you think you can get away with it.
The law about a red light is not an unreasonable law, most of the time. However, what if you have someone in the car that badly needs to get to a hospital ASAP, and nothing is coming the other way? Should you stop for the red light now?
Laws work fine to a certain extent. In general, no you shouldn't break the law. It's certainly not a good replacement for common sense and an individual's moral decency, though.
There is no question, what I did was illegal.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
Well in that case, a jury would decide whether what u did was legal or not....
Justifiable, but still illegal.
Yash,
Yes, but its the law that decides if you go in front of a jury.
My Example.
It is illegal to kill someone. If you kill someone, guess what, You'll be arrested. So,
Lets say I had a daughter. I walk in on her being raped. Guess what? I kill the rapist.
I'd hope I'd be arrested for breaking the law.
I'd hope I'd be let go for justifiable homicide, or some such.
-Lou
There are always, where necessary, amendements to laws i.e. it is foreseen that when you carry persons en route to giving birth or badly wounded persons, there is a leniency in the law insofar as you don't exhibit reckless behaviour. In essence you're not really breaking it, merely bending it.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
Wally, you asked why have laws at all.
Well, the laws serve a purpose. They are pretty good at what they do, overall, but they are not perfect. When they are clearly imperfect, it is not unreasonable to break them, so long as you think you can get away with it.
The law about a red light is not an unreasonable law, most of the time. However, what if you have someone in the car that badly needs to get to a hospital ASAP, and nothing is coming the other way? Should you stop for the red light now?
Laws work fine to a certain extent. In general, no you shouldn't break the law. It's certainly not a good replacement for common sense and an individual's moral decency, though.
There's a difference between bending the law, breaking it out of necessity and breaking it because you don't agree with it.
Your example is breaking it out of necessity and I think that option is taken into the constitution.
It is of course not a replacement because laws are designed to work for larger communities, not individuals on a personal level.
The lawmakers themselves are elected by us and therefore bound to our objections, visions and remarks. If a law doesn't suit you, you protest in legal ways, you don't go around breaking it because you think it shouldn't exist.
So is it morally justifiable to break it ? No I think because the laws themselves have passed a moral screentest before being enacted and have numerous amendements to deal with unforseen and exceptional situations. But the individual has rights and duties he owes for being allowed to live in a society.
Breaking the law because you don't agree with it is neither a right, nor your duty. You do have the right to go through the channels to get the law changed, I would even argue that it is your duty to do so.
Yash_Kumar
What if you don't morally agree with them?Quote:
The fact is, no such laws exists. Laws passed are laws that are morally right
Who is to judge whether the legal system is "proper" or not? I think the legal system in the UK is flawed...Does that mean I have the right to break any law?Quote:
OK first of all, I am only talking about the countries that have proper legal systems like the US, UK, etc.... I am not talking about muslim nations where women could be tortured and all
I can and do break the draug laws. In my opinion, the government has no right dictating to me what I can or cannot put into my body. Therefore, I feel justified in breaking this particular law.Quote:
Name any law that u could jusity in breaking...
Harry
Just to play devil's advocate,
What purpose do laws serve if people can pick and choose which laws they comply with?Quote:
Well, the laws serve a purpose.
Wally Pip
I know what you're saying but I disagree with it. Take the drug laws for example.Quote:
Breaking the law because you don't agree with it is neither a right, nor your duty. You do have the right to go through the channels to get the law changed, I would even argue that it is your duty to do so.
I find it morally repugnant that the government should intervene over what substances you can or cannot ingest and you should not be criminalised for it. OK, I don't have to take drugs. It is not necessary but I don't care. The government is committing the greater crime. Me taking a drug and not affecting anyone else is a lesser crime than the government arresting people and locking them up for taking drugs.
Errr simon, that is precisely why the government is continually changing its position regarding drugs.
Alcohol is served freely, cigarettes can be obtained in every supermarket, softdrugs are allowed if you aren't a burden or problem to society.
The reason why the government has been so harsh on drugs is the numerous deaths, social problems, crimes related to drugs, extra cost for shelters and anti-drug centres etc ...
But now they see that certain types of softdrugs do not cause social problems and therefore are allowed under conditions.
It's not because they want to control what you do, it's because they want to protect the rest of us from the troubles that may come forth from you doing it.
Wally
I don't want to turn this into a drugs debate...but I do want to say that the reasoning behind the drugs laws has nothing to do with the points you listed. It is the "nanny" state attitude that believes it can and should direct the way we live our own private lives. The state knows best.Quote:
The reason why the government has been so harsh on drugs is the numerous deaths, social problems, crimes related to drugs, extra cost for shelters and anti-drug centres etc ...
I don't know about Belgium but that's not the case (yet) in the UK. Even though cannabis has been downgraded, it is still a criminal activity and you can get fined and the substance can be confiscated. And how long has it take for this change in the law to come into effect? Decades!Quote:
But now they see that certain types of softdrugs do not cause social problems and therefore are allowed under conditions.
And if it is your opinion that we should just conform with all morally unjust laws because eventually they will be reviewed and overturned...well, that's just rubbish.
The only reason why the government has had to soften their approach to drug use is because people have just gone ahead and ignored the law. If everyone had just accepted the law and waited for a change, we would never have seen it. The government would have just sat back, congratulated themselves and promptly forgot about it.
It is a sad fact that in our so called "democracies" the most effective way to change unjust laws is to break them en mass and persistantly until something happens.
Quote:
Originally posted by Wally Pipp
If it is justifiable to break it, then why have laws at all ?
If the laws says "don't drive through the red light" and you ignore it, then what is the use of the law ?
You have actually reminded me of a British law that is NOT punished, it is illegal for all vehicles except Fire Engines to go through red lights... so if a police car or ambulance go thru a red light, they are breaking the law - but morally they are perfectly justified. I don't think anyone would bother trying to arrest them ;)
What exactly would you lose out if you were not allowed to use drugs ? Your health ? Your finances ? Bollocks, the only thing you would lose out is your right to destroy your body.
Do you know how many people die of alcohol abuse ? How many social problems there are related to drugs abuse ?
It may be allright for you but if your usage results in deaths, as well your own as some luckless bystander who got ran over by someone who lost control over the car because he ignored the law, then what ?
I've personally witnessed people destroying themselves and even end up behind bars because they took drugs and ran over someone (albeit not on purpose). It's not for you personally, it's for society that laws are concerned and if abiding and not taking drugs is the price to pay to save a human life then I'll gladly pay that price.
I drink beer but that is socially accepted and legal but I know, from personal experience, what a nightmare drunken people can be.
That's what laws are for and if you think that is a nanny state of government then go live somewhere else where laws aren't so strict or address your local mp's with your objections.
everything is subjective, relative and other 'ive's.
Laws are a pretty good idea, rules provide structure for society, but sometimes these laws are inaccurate or clumsy or silly. Certain old laws have never been repealed (eg a London taxi is legally required to carry a bale of hay)
If I was starving hungry, I would have no qualms whatsoever about stealing a loaf of bread to feed my family - particularly if I stole it from a rich person. I wouldn't expect the legal system to be soft on me and say "lets not make it a crime for poor people to do this", but I would want them to take the circumstances into account when judging me.
If the law is such a good model of our ideal morals, why does it vary from place to place? Do morals change?
Why is oral sex illegal in some US states (or was, I seem to remember that from somewhere anyway)? What the heck is going on there?
Morals are related to the community you live in, laws are formed to keep that community from falling apart. Nothing stops you to relocate of course ...
I thought it was only post vans (because they bear the royal insignia) that were allowed to go through red lights. Emergency vehicles running red lights is simply tolerated. i might be wrong though. I often am :DQuote:
Originally posted by Si_the_geek
You have actually reminded me of a British law that is NOT punished, it is illegal for all vehicles except Fire Engines to go through red lights... so if a police car or ambulance go thru a red light, they are breaking the law - but morally they are perfectly justified. I don't think anyone would bother trying to arrest them ;)
Here police, fire dept, ambulances and the likes are allowed by law to go through red light provided that they alert the traffic in front of them by means of lights and siren.
You are, as a driver, legally required to clear the road but not allowed to follow them in their tracks:)
In case anyone's interested, I have had lengthy discussions about this in the software piracy thread that was recently resurrected in Chit Chat. In my opinion, copyright law is imperfect, and I feel it is in no way immoral for people to break copyright law under certain conditions. These conditions are very subjective and personal, though. They are the kind of thing you could never legislate for.
Legislation is no replacement for personal morality. I will act according what I consider right and wrong, not what the law tells me is right and wrong. The law is just a frame of reference that gives us (as a society) a mandate to punish those who act in overtly immoral ways. It's like a EULA for citizenship. The law is a blunt and clumsy instrument, though, which doesn't always get it right.
Never knew that one, might be true!Quote:
Originally posted by Behemoth
I thought it was only post vans (because they bear the royal insignia) that were allowed to go through red lights. Emergency vehicles running red lights is simply tolerated. i might be wrong though. I often am :D
I know that Fire Engines have complete power on the road (as long as they don't endager life). They are allowed to run any vehicles without occupants off the road that are in their way - and it is the owner of the vehicle who is in the wrong, so they must pay for any repairs! :eek:
Behemoth's correct, it's only post vans that can go through red lights.
The emergency services are technically not allowed to.
Wally,
Over here I'm not sure it's illegal to follow in the tracks of an emergency vehicle, but it is frowned upon. It's also considered bad form to get someone to set the fire at the destination in the first place just to get there quicker.
Just for the sake of accuracy. Post-vans can only go thro' red lights or break any other road rules, if 'Her Majesty's post is under threat'. The exact wording may be wrong but the jist is correct.Quote:
Originally posted by Arbiter
Behemoth's correct, it's only post vans that can go through red lights.
So are u trying to tell me that that law should be removed... how many of them would be killed then.... their species would vanishQuote:
Originally posted by GlenW
There is no question, what I did was illegal.
Justifiable, but still illegal.
I feel the drug law is perfectly all right... it probably prevents many people from taking their own life or someone else's.... its to protect U....Quote:
I can and do break the draug laws. In my opinion, the government has no right dictating to me what I can or cannot put into my body. Therefore, I feel justified in breaking this particular law.
This whole debate is going in the wrong direction. U are trying to say that these laws shouldn't exist.... if these laws didn't exist, there would be a million more people say that it is morally just to create such laws... Laws are enacted after a vote.... they are enacted by ordinary people like u and me.... and they are meant for us....
Well first of all, whats your point? Its for a jury to decide the punishment and not u... if u killed that person, u should be prosecuted and put behind bars.... in this case a jury comes into play...Quote:
Yash,
Yes, but its the law that decides if you go in front of a jury.
My Example.
It is illegal to kill someone. If you kill someone, guess what, You'll be arrested. So,
Lets say I had a daughter. I walk in on her being raped. Guess what? I kill the rapist.
I'd hope I'd be arrested for breaking the law.
I'd hope I'd be let go for justifiable homicide, or some such.
Now in the case of the buck/deer that was shot, a jury comes into play again. If u explain to the police officer that why u killed him, I am sure he would let u go, so the police officer is playing the jury here..., he is a officer of the law as u might wanna put it. And if the officer does fine u, u could easily bring this matter up in court as an appeal or by pleading not guilty.... then the matter goes straight to the jury and they decide! The jury decides the law or in other words the jury decides whether the law applies to u or not....
forgot to add this:
since the jury is considered to be the law.... we could easily draw the conclusion that the law decides whether a law is applicable to someone
Yash, you seem to be completely missing the point of what has been said.
No. That's not the point in this thread.Quote:
U are trying to say that these laws shouldn't exist....
The point in this thread is whether it is morally justifiable to break these laws under some circumstances.
Once again: This thread is not about saying laws shouldn't exist.
The law that Glen broke exists for a good reason. he broke it for a good reason. He isn't saying the law shouldn't exist.
Pay attention, please.
It is not the job of the jury to decide whether what someone did is right or wrong. The jury's job is to decide whether they are guilty or innocent of the crime with which they are charged.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
forgot to add this:
since the jury is considered to be the law.... we could easily draw the conclusion that the law decides whether a law is applicable to someone
The judge is the one that decides on the consequences if they are found to have broken the law.
Yash,
Your logic's bollocks.
"Spike Milligan is dead, therefore all dead people are Spike Milligan."
This is dead debate anyway.
In a nutshell, yes it is morally justifiable to break the law, but only in extreme circumstances.
Harry
If you take a peep in the "Audio Galaxy" thread, you will notice that this topic has already been extensively revisited. Indeed, I re-posted one of your posts from the "Software Piracy" thread.Quote:
In case anyone's interested, I have had lengthy discussions about this in the software piracy thread that was recently resurrected in Chit Chat.
Wally Pipp
It should (and is) illegal to harm people in anyway whether or not I'm on drugs, alcohol or anything else. If I take drugs, go out and drive a car and end up running someone over, I should be punished accordingly.Quote:
It may be allright for you but if your usage results in deaths, as well your own as some luckless bystander who got ran over by someone who lost control over the car because he ignored the law, then what ?
Punishing all people who take drugs because some of them might go out and put other people's lives at risk is just ridiculous. Talk about using a sledge hammer to crack a nut.
No definitely not, I strongly agree with that law.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
So are u trying to tell me that that law should be removed... how many of them would be killed then.... their species would vanish
It is the interpretation of it that needs to be correct.
I could have been prosecuted for what I did, but I doubt, had a policeman been there, that I ever would.
Apparently somewhere in the UK if you use a bow and arrow you are allowed to shoot welshmen. Wish I lived there.:)
Also, theoretically, it is possible to be executed for killing homing pigeons.
And then what ? Allow it and increase the possibility that an idiot under influence kills innocents because he cannot contain his habit ?
I think that in some circumstances it is morally justifable to break the law. take Euthanasia for instance. If I was on deaths doors, in incredible pain, and had absolutely no chance of recovery, I would rather decide for myself to end it instead of some court that has no personal interest in the matter.
Oh! and if you get worked up about the law, do what I did:
Find an ugly policewoman, so the next bit is easy, take her out, shag her, then dump her.
I don't feel good about myself, but I bet she doesn't either:D
nope... the Jury can rule whether the law should be applicable to a person... this has been done a lot of times before... the jury responds with not guilty..... only if the jury rules that the person is gulity can the judge hand punishment
i dont know what the f*** i am talking about... i am just happy that today is a relief from work !! i am free, no work today!! yipeee
Harry
Actually, you might be wrong here...Quote:
It is not the job of the jury to decide whether what someone did is right or wrong. The jury's job is to decide whether they are guilty or innocent of the crime with which they are charged.
I was talking to an American Libertarian the other day and he has this to say:
Quote:
What is one of the fundamental cornerstones of freedom? That's right, trial by jury. Trial by jury has been around far longer than the Constitution; it was invented by the Anglo Saxons a thousand years ago.
You assume that 12 randomly chosen citizens will not be your "peers." The peers portion of their makeup is secondary, by "peer" we really mean, ordinary citizen, not a member or extension of the government.
But the absolutely critical piece is not that they are peers, it is that they are randomly selected. This is the critical thing to understand, because randomly selected juries are the crucial check against the tyranny of law, and in this country, the tyranny of the majority.
First, you have to understand one thing about juries. When you are on a jury, regardless of what the judge may tell you (we'll get to this point later), it is your duty not just to simply rule on the facts of the case, but also to rule on the very law itself. Think about that. You cannot in good conscience convict a person of violating a law that you find unjust. Period. Do not let anyone tell you otherwise. If the law is ****, you must acquit.
Throughout history, this is how bad laws have been overturned. A perfect example is the runaway slave laws in free states. Prior to the Civil War, man non-slave states had Fugitive Slave Laws that required runaway slaves caught in their borders be returned to their masters in slave states, and that citizens caught sheltering them or helping them make their way to states without fugitive slave laws were criminals, and subject to prosecution, imprisonment, and fines. And many were prosecuted.
But here's the kicker: the prosecutors couldn't get convictions. Approximately 25% of the population were Abolishonists. That meant that any randomly selected jury of 12 was virtually guaranteed to have 2 or 3 abolishonists, and they would hang the jury. Because the law was bad. Eventually, the prosecutors, worried about not maintaining their high conviction rates, stopped prosecuting the "crime" of helping runaway slaves. The law effectively died. It did not even have to be repealed, though in some places they were. It just went unenforced. Acquittal by jury carries no weight of law or precedent, but eventually those shoddy laws that fail its test eventually wither away.
This is called jury nullification, and it is critical to freedom. Think about it. What this means is that the majority cannot oppress the minority, if the system works as it is intended to. It may take only 51% to pass a law binding the other 49%, but do you think that randomly selected juries of twelve people would ever be able to convict on a law that around 6 members didn't agree with? Never!
In fact, it takes a greater majority than even an 11-to-1 ratio (91% majority) for a law to survive jury nullification. You could expect each jury to have 1 opposition member in that scenario. Some will have none and will convict, but most will have at least one or more, and will hang. I typed "acquit" here at first, it's not, it's a hung jury. But the effect is the same.
So in this system, where the overwhelming majority of people agree on crimes such as murder, rape, and armed robbery, the perpetrators of these crimes, if the evidence supports their guilt, will always be convicted. However, perpetrators of such "crimes" as smoking a joint, which has been done by 40% of the population, would virtually never be convicted, regardless of what the law states or what evidence is presented, and the law will fail.
This is not jurors acting rashly or improperly, it is their solemn duty and responsibility. You cannot convict someone of a crime that your conscience dictates is not a criminal act. This has been the basis of trial by jury for a thousand years.
Another case in point. Prohibition. Why do you think prohibition was repealed? Was it because the politicians finally saw the light, saw the crime they had created, the death and misery they had wrought?
Nope.
It was the people. The people on the juries. With greater and greater frequency, they refused to convict on "alcohol related charges." By 1928, prosecutors could not buy a conviction. Because the population knew in their hearts that there is nothing wrong with having a beer, or a glass of wine, or a shot of whiskey, nor with selling any of these. It's really funny; you see this lack of convictions portrayed nowadays as organized criminals paying off the jury (imagine "The Untouchables"), but it was really just jury nullification of an evil and oppressive law. Eventually Congress smelled the way the wind was blowing, and finally repealed the 19th amendment in 1933.
But wait . . . if this is all true, why then are our prisons overflowing with non-violent drug offenders? Why do we have to parole serial killers and most rapists to make room for those who smoke or sell pot, when 40% of the population has done so?
Wally Pip
But it's the act of killing innocents that is wrong, not the act of taking drugs. All the drug laws do is incriminate lots of people who actually do no harm to others in an attempt to stop the small minority who actually harm others.Quote:
And then what ? Allow it and increase the possibility that an idiot under influence kills innocents because he cannot contain his habit ?
Thus the law is inherantly flawed. It makes criminals out of people who aren't actually doing anything wrong.
Hence the need for revision. Which is what they are doing now.
Wally Pip
And I attest that they wouldn't be reviewing it if people didn't continue to break the law and take drugs anyway.Quote:
Hence the need for revision. Which is what they are doing now.
It's Chester, but you have to fire from within the city walls. Still, with a bit of practice I'm sure you'll do well :DQuote:
Originally posted by GlenW
Apparently somewhere in the UK if you use a bow and arrow you are allowed to shoot welshmen. Wish I lived there.:)
well.... u changed my view.... maybe it is so sometimes.... so now i'll just take crack and drive over some old lady crossing the street...
is your point that this law should be removed?
I think that laws that infringe upon the liberty of others need to be repealed. Laws should protect people's liberty and not infringe upon it.
Atlanta Journal
Quote:
The Ten Commandments contain 297 words.
The Bill of Rights is stated in 463 words.
Lincoln's Gettysburg Address contains 266 words.
A federal directive to regulate the price of cabbage contains 26,911 words.
Until a person exercising his liberties is infringing on someone else's. For example, that freedom of speech guy standing on my corner with a bullhorn is beyond his rights. He needs to go somewhere that people don't have to leave their homes to get away from him.Quote:
Originally posted by simonm
I think that laws that infringe upon the liberty of others need to be repealed. Laws should protect people's liberty and not infringe upon it.
finally cafeenman has stepped in... whose side are u on?
The side of common sense.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
finally cafeenman has stepped in... whose side are u on?
Aren't we all...? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Cafeenman
The side of common sense.
:confused: i had a sleepless night... what is common sense?? And guess what! no work today!!Quote:
Originally posted by cafeenman
The side of common sense.
how did u like my new sig??
Too busy. I never read things like that because they require too much work to wade through it. My suggestion, for what it's worth, is to pick a couple things and then have move links on those pages for people who are interested.Quote:
Originally posted by Yash_Kumar
how did u like my new sig??
Nope. Just me. :pQuote:
Originally posted by simonm
Aren't we all...? :rolleyes: