Is it morally wrong to break the law? (1 Viewer)

[jennyfromdabloc]

I know what the libertarians will say, so this is a question for those that believe the democratic nation state is legitimate.

Obviously people dismiss situations like Nazi Germany on the basis that laws made by a dictatorship are illegitimate, but modern democracies have made some pretty obscene laws over the years, this being one of the worst examples: Japanese American internment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So at what point is it morally acceptable, or even laudable to break a law made by a "legitimate" democratic government? Here are some scenarios to consider:



1. All people from a particular race are rounded up into internment camps. Is it okay to help them hide from the government?

2. A certain word is banned. Should you refrain from using it even in your own home. Should you encourage your children not to use it to promote respect for the law.

3. What if the law makes sense but the punishment is excessively draconian, i.e. the death penalty for petty theft. Would you be justified in helping a thief evade capture or even tampering with evidence?

4. When homosexuality was illegal in Australia, was it immoral for homosexuals to break this law? Would it be wrong for the police to deliberately turn a blind eye to this law breaking, as they often did?




If it is sometimes okay to break the law, and we must use our judgment in deciding when to follow the law, how can the law be said to be inherently legitimate just because it was made by a democratic government?

If you agree it is okay to break the law sometimes, then you admit that we have rights as individuals even if they are not granted to us by law or the constitution, and that the law is subordinate to those individuals rights.

 

[David Spade]

I have no problem breaking the law unless i am hurting someone else or there is a good chance i will get caught (self preservation)

 

[SylviaB]

unless it encroaches upon the freedoms or safety of someone else, then it's nearly always not immoral.

 

[David Spade]

It is quite easy to do some VERY illegal shit without coming close to endangering someone else.

 

[Iron]

Unless it goes against natural law (esp re life), all government derives its authority from Christ.
God wants men to govern themselves and to govern themselves justly. Only on the most serious violations of God's law should trump a meek and purely material obedience to the state

 

[SylviaB]

Unless it goes against natural law (esp re life), all government derives its authority from Christ.
God wants men to govern themselves and to govern themselves justly. Only on the most serious violations of God's law should trump a meek and purely material obedience to the state

yeah you stopped being funny ages ago

 

[Iron]

Good

 

[CountVonChocula]

woud you hang (by the hands with handcuffs) and beat a politician with the yellow pages then rotate between the yellow pages and oranges for 2 days?

because that wouldn't be illegal

 

[lolokay]

what do you mean by morally, and why are you trying to reduce the concept to arbitrary absolutes? are you religious?

simple answer: sometimes the best course of action involves breaking the law in some way, sometimes it's best to work within the law

 

[loquasagacious]

Unless it goes against natural law (esp re life), all government derives its authority from Christ.
God wants men to govern themselves and to govern themselves justly. Only on the most serious violations of God's law should trump a meek and purely material obedience to the state

Where the law of the state violates your perception of natural law which should you follow?

 

[Absolutezero]

I believe in circumstances the law can be open to interpretation. However, I believe the interpretation needs to be legitimately justifiable, which is where legal problems occur in terms of punishment and regulation.

 

[aussie-boy]

I don't think there's a definite link between morals and the law.

E.g. The majority of Australians would probably vote NO in a referendum to prosecute for online file sharing; even though consuming media created by others for free is morally wrong in some aspects.

The law is what people want to live by, morals are about being idealistic and often impractical and short-sighted.

 

[Iron]

Where the law of the state violates your perception of natural law which should you follow?

The State has no power over the invidivdual except that which is given to it. Love is stronger than power; the ultimate threat of death is nothing compared to God's eternal love. We should always follow the natural law which is not only stated and guarded by the Universal Church, but is also planted on our hearts. There's no room for varying perceptions

 

[youngminii]

The State has no power over the invidivdual except that which is given to it. Love is stronger than power; the ultimate threat of death is nothing compared to God's eternal love. We should always follow the natural law which is not only stated and guarded by the Universal Church, but is also planted on our hearts. There's no room for varying perceptions

So would an athiest be allowed to break the law without it being morally wrong?

 

[KFunk]

If there is an argument to be had here it is likely that it is morally wrong to break legitimate law (e.g. it doesn't matter if you break some law which systematically enforces heinous human rights abuses). The issue then becomes one of characterising legitimacy.

Legitimacy might come from god and/or natural law (see Iron), compatibility with certain inalienable moral principles (some forms of liberalism), power or the right of the state (Hobbes, Kant), consensus formation in a setting of ideal discourse (Habermas), rule-utilitarian style justification which asserts that following the law will tend to prodcue the best outcomes in the longrun, etc...

Another way of addressing this issue would be to ask 'when is it morally wrong to break the law, if at all?'

 

[Iron]

So would an athiest be allowed to break the law without it being morally wrong?

Yes. You are only laws unto yourselves

 

[youngminii]

If there is an argument to be had here it is likely that it is morally wrong to break legitimate law (e.g. it doesn't matter if you break some law which systematically enforces heinous human rights abuses). The issue then becomes one of characterising legitimacy.

Legitimacy might come from god and/or natural law (see Iron), compatibility with certain inalienable moral principles (some forms of liberalism), power or the right of the state (Hobbes, Kant), consensus formation in a setting of ideal discourse (Habermas), rule-utilitarian style justification which asserts that following the law will tend to prodcue the best outcomes in the longrun, etc...

Another way of addressing this issue would be to ask 'when is it morally wrong to break the law, if at all?'

So at what point is it morally acceptable, or even laudable to break a law made by a "legitimate" democratic government?

Wtf you just reworded the OP

 

[youngminii]

Yes. You are only laws unto yourselves

lolwut

 

[loquasagacious]

If there is an argument to be had here it is likely that it is morally wrong to break legitimate law (e.g. it doesn't matter if you break some law which systematically enforces heinous human rights abuses). The issue then becomes one of characterising legitimacy.

Legitimacy might come from god and/or natural law (see Iron), compatibility with certain inalienable moral principles (some forms of liberalism), power or the right of the state (Hobbes, Kant), consensus formation in a setting of ideal discourse (Habermas), rule-utilitarian style justification which asserts that following the law will tend to prodcue the best outcomes in the longrun, etc...

Another way of addressing this issue would be to ask 'when is it morally wrong to break the law, if at all?'

The various foundations of legitimacy have significant difference though - so much so that a law could be legitimate from one persepective but illegitimate from another... is it then moral for some groups to willfully break the law and for others to comply with it? How is that kind of legal relativity practical? And if it isn't then which framework do we use to assess the legitimacy of law?

 

[Iron]

Does peaceful non-compliance count as 'breaking' the law though?