Is it ever morally justifiable to break the law?

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:07 AM

Wally Pip

Fine, then you disagree. But you remain a criminal. Period.

Well, until the law is changed...

Why do you keep comming back to statements of the law? Yes, we know that breaking the law makes you, by definition, a criminal. However, we are arguing that in some cases it is morally justifiable. I know that you are still a criminal (in the eyes of the law) but that does nto mean that it isn't morally justified.

**HarryW** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:09 AM

Originally posted by Wally Pipp
Fine, then you disagree. But you remain a criminal. Period.

That's 3 times you have said this now.

It's not the point.

**Wally Pipp** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:11 AM

I keep coming back to it because in our society (until it dramatically changes) the law has the final word despite of your opinions, ideas and thoughts. If it came to a contest between what you think and what the law dictates, your thoughts and opinions lose out every single time. They are subordinate to the law and constitution. Why ? Because that's the way our society works.

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:15 AM

We're not getting anywhere here.

As far as Wally is concerned, a law is a law is a law. It must be obeyed and it is never justifiable to break it. Ever.

Perhaps if you had a perfect democracy, he would be right. The most effective way to change the law would be through the system itself.

However, morally corrupt laws are indicative of an imperfect democracy and therefore the "appropriate" channels simply cannot be relied upon.

**HarryW** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:16 AM

Sorry Wally, I'm not a robot. I do things because they seem like the best thing to do, not because someone tells me to.

The law is one influence in a number of things that influence my decisions and actions. It is not something to be worshipped.

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:17 AM

Perhaps Belgium has the perfect democracy?

**Wally Pipp** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:19 AM

If your democracy is imperfect then work on it.
Are you responsible for 58 million British ? No you are not.
Your government is. Not you, not Harry, not any of your friends.
And as long as your government is in charge and responsible, they are the highest authority and thus are the ones that make or change the laws.

And until you are in charge of the whole country you are to abide the law or face the consequences.

Breaking the law (Yes harry, once again) makes you a criminal.

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:22 AM

I think, Wally, that you simply have more faith in the "system" than we do. That's all our difference of opinion comes down to.

**HarryW** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:23 AM

Breaking the law (Yes harry, once again) makes you a criminal.

No ****ing sh*t mate. No ****ing sh*t. Thanks for telling us that 4 times, that's really adding to this discussion

I'm not sure I quite got that actually, maybe you'd like to copy and paste some of your other posts just so I get completely bored and leave the thread since there's no new material in here.

Whether breaking the law makes you a criminal is not the central issue of this thread. The central issue is whether it makes you immoral. Hello? Is this making any sense? Am I not speaking English?

**Wally Pipp** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:27 AM

That's what I think too simon. Perhaps 'our' system is better suited, I don't know about the British system. Ours is much more of a multiparty system like many others on the continent, the UK is much more like the US (restricted to a few parties).

Which also means that our government has representatives from a broad range of political ideas and ideologies, giving us a more detailed palette to find our choice. I would find it hard to choose between only Tories, Labour or LibDems (for all intents and purposes).

I'm not saying that we are better than you but in our government are much more 'other' voices to be found (I presume). And that ultimately gives us more confidence in the system.

**Arbiter** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:28 AM

Originally posted by simonm
Wally
I meet people like Arbiter every day and hear the same old arguments that are not borne out by either logic or evidence time and time again. These misconceptions die hard but I have every confidence that we'll get there eventually.

I can guarantee you don't meet people like me every day.

Please don't just dismiss what I say as misconceptions that aren't borne out by logic simply because I don't agree with you.
You seem to have this view that what you're saying is right, and dismiss everything else which doesn't concur.

From your point of view I've no logic or evidence behind my statements. From my point of view, you don't either. And my arguements are probably old. Yours are too, this is an old argument.

Anyway.

I've discussed this with a few people yesterday. I was talking to Behemoth about it in the car. He doesn't agree with the viewpoint I was putting forward but at least he didn't have the "I'm right, you're wrong - why can't you see it?" attitude you have.

I was discussing it with a colleague (who does a lot of drugs, and retains a sensible life you'll be glad to hear). He subscribes to what I was saying, which I found a little odd. Here's why: Although he's ok with drugs (including some pretty hard stuff which makes him a bit of maniac on a night out) he was telling me about 3 of his mates who aren't. One's struggling through rehab, one's lost his job and become a doley and the other's dead.

Now, as stated, I'm not continuing in this 'debate' as I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall - I just thought I'd provide you with the above info, in case it helps any of you in discussing it. It backs up your statement Simon that some people are capable of taking drugs, even hard ones, (which was never really in question) and also mine that others aren't.

Frankly people, I couldn't give a rats todger whether drugs are legalised are not. My attitude's rather selfish. It doesn't affect me, so I don't care. I'm more than capable of defending myself against a junky toe-to-toe and the chances of me getting killed by an out of control car are rather slim. If people want to kill themselves with drugs, then let them. If people want to toot on a dooby, lie on the lounge floor giggling and eat ten mars bars, then let them.

I was only chipping in because there didn't seem to be any tremendous opposition besides Danny and it was making a rather stale debate. I was simply playing devils advocate. Or Arbiter, if you prefer.

I find it amusing.

As a personal aside Simon, and no offence intended (well, not much anyway

), you could really do with dropping the 'I'm right, you're wrong' attitude. Maybe try being a little more open minded? Or at least less bull headed.

You may now continue.

**Wally Pipp** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:30 AM

Originally posted by HarryW
No ****ing sh*t mate. No ****ing sh*t. Thanks for telling us that 4 times, that's really adding to this discussion I'm not sure I quite got that actually, maybe you'd like to copy and paste some of your other posts just so I get completely bored and leave the thread since there's no new material in here.

Whether breaking the law makes you a criminal is not the central issue of this thread. The central issue is whether it makes you immoral. Hello? Is this making any sense? Am I not speaking English?

I understand perfectly.
It is illegal. We agree. Does morality have any bearing on it ? Not in the very least.

So is it immoral to do so ? for some I guess not. Does that make it allright to do it ? Not in the very least.

Hello ? Do I make any sense ? Or do I have to start being condescending like you ?

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:38 AM

Arbiter

Please don't just dismiss what I say as misconceptions that aren't borne out by logic simply because I don't agree with you.

I don't remember dismissing anything you said out of hand. I gave logical arguments (which you chose to dismiss saying that drug addicts aren't logical).

You seem to have this view that what you're saying is right, and dismiss everything else which doesn't concur.

I have good reasons and logical arguments to back up my opinion and I didn't see any comming from you to challenge you. However, I may be wrong.

Let us look again at any particular point that either you made and I dismissed unfairly or any point that I made for which I had little reason to suppose. Let us look again at these and I will try to be a little more open minded in their consideration.

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:41 AM

Wally Pip

Does morality have any bearing on it ? Not in the very least.

Err, to be fair to Harry, the morality of breaking the law is precisely what we're attempting to discuss here.

Your logic seems to be that if it's against the law, it must be immoral, by definition. Either that or you are arguing that personal morals should never be considered above the law.

**Wally Pipp** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:45 AM

The last one simon. But more precise Personal morals are no excuse for breaking the law. Of course you can have personal morals. You can protest, write your objections off in a book, leaflet or internet site, direct your grievances to your government.
There is freedom of speech. Use it. But personal morals are no excuse for breaking the law.

**Arbiter** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:45 AM

Simon,

Like I've said - I don't give a monkeys. Nothing new's happening in here. Even Harry's get a bit brassed off

**Pickler** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:47 AM

Morality and law are quite frankly two seperate and different issues, with a undefinable amount of overlap.

For some people, breaking certain laws would be considered immoral. For other's, not at all.

So really the whole argument is bull****.

Just my two cents worth.

**Wally Pipp** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:48 AM

And, quite frankly, so am I. No new insights here served by either side. So I'll just bugger out of this thread. I've said what I have to say about the matter but nothing I bring on or say is going to help this argument and neither is anything you bring on.

**simonm** · Jun 27th, 2002, 05:49 AM

Arbiter

Like I've said - I don't give a monkeys.

To be honest, you gave that impression when we were in discussion. That is probably why I didn't take your arguments very seriously.

**kedaman** · Jun 28th, 2002, 12:12 PM

simon

If you can't make it clear to Wally the difference between moral justification and law, then let him be. However don't you think morals are subjective, and requires a reference frame?

**simonm** · Jul 1st, 2002, 03:30 AM

However don't you think morals are subjective, and requires a reference frame?

Yes, morals are subjective which is precisely why the government should refrain from legislating against people's morals except in the most extraneous of circumstances.

Even reference frames are ultimately subjective.

**snakeeyes1000** · Jul 1st, 2002, 09:52 AM

both laws and morals are for fools. my advice is to ditch both of them and don't look back

Thread: Is it ever morally justifiable to break the law?

Thread Tools

Display

Posting Permissions