Is it Morrally Acceptable to Break Laws You Don't Agree with?

[#hamler]

The topic of the legalization of marijuana is often debated. The arguments against the legalization of pot are usually solid but there are always those select few who blurt out "But it's against the law!" as if that's a reason why no one should ever use it. The same argument has been used numerous of times for various subjects and it's a great point. Laws should be followed. We do not need to go about stealing and murdering our peers.

There's no doubt societies need rules so that life is decent for as many people as possible. However, there have been some aweful laws in the past. For example, slavery, wife-beating, child labor, religious & sexual persecution, banning reproductive choice, cultural genocide - at several times through out history these examples have been encouraged by law. Depending on the time and place, to help a slave or a Jew escape persecution or death was to break the laws of that place. Should people who helped slaves or Jews be thought of as criminals because they recognized that certain laws were clearly wrong/immoral - and needed to be broken?

I've listed examples. This thread isn't necessarily about helping jews escape execution or the legalization of pot, but when and if it is morally wrong break laws you do not agree with?

How can we wisely determine which times/circumstances it is moral to break the law and when it is not?

Can breaking a law you don't agree with, be the best form of protest?

Discuss.

 

[Dwayne_Jason]

How can we wisely determine which times/circumstances it is moral to break the law and when it is not?

Well its quite simple really, laws that, if broken, will not harm or intrude on anyone else's lifestyle is when its wise to break it. It just depends on what type of law it is that you're breaking. Thing with laws is that a lot of them are just based on a technicality so sometimes you gotta go around a broken system if you wanna get things done. Things like Piracy and such are not "serious" laws despite the general paranoia of the recording companies/artists. They're not serious because they're not hurting anyone except for artists who're already millionaires. And continue to earn handsomely in this day and age.

Crimes that are absolutely, 100% without a shadow of a doubt victim less, are okay.

When I say lifestyle I mean a person who's breathing. If you're a vegetable then you don't fit that category. (That doesn't mean you can go around and beat comatose patients)


Can breaking a law you don't agree with, be the best form of protest?

In a way, sure. But just because you don't agree with it doesn't make it right. If you don't agree with murder, you can protest them by killing people.

 

[Mustang Sally]

I suppose the short answer is that it doesn't matter whether or not it's morally wrong to break a law; the fact that it's legally wrong is what will determine what happens to you if you get caught.

If you believe a law to be morally wrong and decide to break it, don't cry if you get caught and prosecuted by a court that isn't impressed by your moral beliefs. You can try to explain your reasoning to the judge, but if you did what you did, knowing full well it was against the law, it's doubtful you'd be spared the penalty.

On the one hand, there are plenty of "moral" people who use devious means to break the law in an effort to not get caught. On the other hand, if those people are so sure the law is morally wrong, why would they bother to conceal their intentions in an effort to not get caught? If you believe you're doing right, why hide it?

Face it, when a law is clearly stated, the powers-that-be mean for it to be followed. When people choose to go their own way and break that law, what you've got is.......anarchy.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Whether it is morrally acceptable is not the same as whether it is ethical or even legal. They are all different things. Laws are set in stone unless they get ammended. Ethics are agreed upon, but differ from group to group. Morals differ from individual to individual. So therefore, when I think it's morrally acceptable to break laws I don't agree with won't be the same as anybody else's answer but my own. It really depends on what the law is. Sometimes laws are passed that should not be, and if that law violates your own personal moral beliefs, then that is when it would be morrally acceptable to break that law. It is best determined that it would be moral to break a law if the law put anybody in any form of danger, regardless of what type of person. Breaking a law you don't agree with can be a great form of protest, but it can get you in big trouble. It would be better instead to stimulate discussion about what could be done instead, which if it reaches enough people could potentially help ammend or even remove the harmful/unethical law that started the whole problem to begin with.

 

[ScruffDog]

How can we wisely determine which times/circumstances it is moral to break the law and when it is not?

There is a really simple answer. If the benefits of you breaking the law out way the consequences of you getting caught, then you can go ahead a break the law.

With the example you gave about slavery and the Holocaust. If you are wiling to risk your life to help out a group of people from persecution, then go ahead and break the law. If you can live with yourself denying these people help, then go ahead and follow the law.

In the end, only you have to live with the choices you make. If you can't handle the consequences then follow the law. But if there's a law and the personal reward for breaking it is greater than the risk, do what you want.

 

[RockFan89]

Henry David Thoreau, an American transcendentalist from the 1800s wrote an essay entitled "Civil Disobedience" where he basically states that if you think a law is wrong, you should disobey it, peacefully, but also accept the consequences of breaking the law. This essay went on to influence people like Gandhi and Martin Luther Kings Jr.

For example, if you're against the war in Iraq and you decide to stop paying taxes to support the Federal government, I would deem your behavior as moral if you accepted the punishment for doing so. Otherwise you're just a tax cheat which is not moral.

I think that is a good rule in many situations, especially in cases like drug legalization. When it comes to something like the Holocaust, however, then I don't think you have to accept that. In that case, you have to weigh for yourself is risking your life worth trying to save others? And there is no right answer to that. Either choice you make could be morally acceptable since morals are determined by individuals (unless you're appealing to some authority, like the Bible).

You can't give a blanket yes and no to the question because the laws and their impact on people vary so greatly.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

It really depends on the system of morality that one ascribes to. Since there is no universal ethic, I would say that this question is indeterminable.

I'm not even sure if morals exist...now there's a topic.

 

[LSN80]

Its hard for me to add much to what has already been said, but Ill try.

Morality in essence boils down to three things: Intentions, Decisions, and Actions. Its in these ways that every human being, to the best of us to the worst, determines the difference between what is truly right and wrong. Intent is the specific purpose by which we do things. Decisions are essentially the mental process one goes through when determining our intent, and what to do. Actions are the behavior in and of themselves based upon our intentions and the decision making process.

I really believe that intent and the decision making process are truly what is the basis for answering the question. If someone can truly process the belief that what they are doing is for the right reasons, theyre coming to a specific intent. And if you can go through this process and truly believe that what youre doing is for the good of others and/or yourselves, then I can understand the justification for breaking the law. Im not saying I agree with it, but I can see the rationale, nonetheless.

Say a husband is sitting at home having a few drinks. His wife just so happens to be pregnant, not due for a month, but her water breaks early, and the baby is coming. For arguments sake, we'll assume it's where I live, past 7(which is when the taxis shut down), and the ambulances in town are out of order. I know its a stretch, but bear with me. The man probably shouldn't be driving, as he's had more then enough to drink that there's no way he should be driving. But being without options(no family on either side , nor friends, can be reached), what choice does he have? It can be dangerous for the woman to not get to the hospital to have that kid, especially a month early, but its quite illegal and wrong to drive drunk. So what should he do?

Obviously, Im steering this in a different direction, and perhaps off topic. Im not going to answer the question above, Ill leave that for you to do. The fact of the matter is, laws aren't arbitrary, as they apply to all people in all situations. But not all situations are alike, and if the intent and decision making process leads you to a place where you have to break the law for the right reasons, its a decision someone should make based upon their morality, not the law. Life is situational, laws are not.

 

[Calderownz]

In depends, obviously, like many have said.

Regardless, laws aren't directly linked to morals. Laws are -- essentially -- national ethics. For example, it's not illegal to cheat on a girlfriend. Though, most would consider that to be an immoral act. At the same time, some wouldn't consider smoking weed to be a moral injustice, yet it's unethical in the courts' eyes if your country has deemed it illegal.

Nothing is across the board. I'm virtually never in favor of that. (I realize there are circumstances where virtually everyone is, but this definitely isn't one of those cases.) It simply has to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

Take murder for example. Most are against it, I would assume. However, it depends for me. If you feel this person should cease to live, so you kill them; I'm against it. However, if you feel this way because he molested your daughter, then I'll sell you the ammunition.

“There are 4 kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy.” - Ambrose Bierce.

“Murder is always a mistake - one should never do anything one cannot talk about after dinner." - Oscar Wilde.

Obvisouly, there are conflicting ideas behind our example of murder. So, it's obviously not across the board. The fact of the matter is; whether it's immoral, unethical or illegal, you have to be willing to face the consequences. While this leaves a door open for sociopaths to do crazy things, this is as across-the-board as this issue will ever get.

But you have to be willing to face any potential consequences.

 

[SomeAreSet]

When and if it is morally wrong break laws you do not agree with?

I don't think it's a moral issue.Let's say you feel that somebody you don't like ought to die,so you murder him.Is it morally right to murder someone just because you don't agree with the law?I don't think it's an issue of morals,but rather "Should someone be punished for breaking the law that he/she doesn't agree with?"

How can we wisely determine which times/circumstances it is moral to break the law and when it is not?

Morals are determined by the majority.If the majority doesn't think that something is right,then it becomes a moral issue.It's been the same throughout history.Slavery,Women's rights,Abortion,etc. So in a way,I don't believe in morals,just what I feel is right and wrong.Morals are just something the people in power cook up for the public to conform to.

Can breaking a law you don't agree with, be the best form of protest?

It depends.Martin Luther King Jr. did not have to break any laws to promote civil rights.The suffrage movement didn't have to break any laws to get women the power to vote.In the case of a democracy,or in a case where the government listens to the people,all you have to do is have a voice and a reasonable explanation.But,in the case of a totalitarian regime,then yes,breaking the law seems to be the best way to protest.For example,Nelson Mandela and Aung San Suu Kyi,or more recently,the protests in the Middle East.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Well, if you want to be technical about it, disobeying laws you don't agree with was generally how the United States became a country in the first place. We look back on certain people in our history, some of the Founding Fathers, political movers & shakers, soldiers, warriors and even legitimate criminals that disobeyed the status quo with various levels of admiration. Generally speaking, however, it's a complex question.

Notorious Depression Era murderes & criminals like Bonnie & Clyde, Machine Gun Kelly, Babyface Nelson and others like them have been romanticized and idolized in books and films for decades. Despite the fact that they peformed some downright despicable acts, they're still sort of admired because they went against a system that many ordinary Americans felt had failed or just simply didn't give a shit about them. They're still thought of in lots of ways as folk heroes. Were they right for what they did? It's easy to say no but, then again, most of us living today weren't alive in those times in which modern conveniences and even laws that we have today and take for granted would have seemed like miracles in 1933.

From a legal standpoint, Americans have always been encouraged to stand up against laws that they don't agree with. That's what the entire concept of jury nulification is all about. Juries are made up of ordinary men and women rather than legal experts like other lawyers & judges and that in and of itself is rather extraordinary. That means that criminal trials and charges aren't strictly by the letter of the law. If it was, then the system as we know it wouldn't exist. Ordinary people have to not only look at the evidence given in a trial, they also have to look at the people involved, how evidence was collected, etc. They have to look at the circumstances surrounding why a person may have done whatever it is that they did. Some people can be downright guilty as hell for what they've been charged with, a jury knows it but will sometimes aquit because they simply don't agree that the person should've been charged with the crime or that this person simply did what they had to do.

Then you've got the other side of the issue. How many people that've bombed abortion clinics or killed doctors that performed abortions have claimed that they were defying an unjust law? That they were saving the lives of innocent children everywhere from mass murderers? How many crackheads desperate for their next fix, people that've decided that they'll put whatever they want into their bodies regardless of the law, have robbed and killed so said crackheads can get what they need?

 

[JGlass]

Ricky said all there really is to say. Unless there is an objective morality (I personally don't believe there is an objective morality), the situation varies completely on a case to case basis.

Firstly, are they breaking the laws in hopes that the laws will change, or in hopes that they simply won't get caught? There are plenty of people who smoke weed who attempt to get the laws changed, but I'd say the majority of pot smokers are quite content to just keep on smoking weed behind closed doors.

Additionally, there are some that nobody in their right mind believes are unjust, like laws against murdering people. However, there are people out there who do kill for their own sick pleasure. There's no way you can say this type of law breaking is morally acceptable.

On the other hand, where would be without the countless numbers of blacks who broke unjust laws during the Civil Rights movement? Where would be without the hippies who burnt their draft cards? Where would we be if our forefathers didn't flip the bird towards England, pissed in their tea, and then kicked their funny teeth straight out of their mouths? (Sorry Sam, Lee, Dave, and any other of you fine fellows from the UK, but we totally kicked your ass back then).

There's no way you can give a sweeping yes or no statement for this. It varies on a case to case basis. It is morally acceptable for some laws, not for others.