Morality and Legality

[Rush1184]

I have to write an essay tonight on morality and legality, basically whether morally wrong laws should be broken. Before I write my essays, I usually like to discuss the topics with friends, but as they are all asleep, I am wondering if my DU friends would like to take their place and discuss this with me.

[Rush1184]

1. and before anyone says anything...

I am NOT trying to get you all to write my essay or do my research for me, just trying to get food for thought.

[Rush1184]

10. Here is my introduction... Any thoughts would be appreciated.

Morality is not defined by legality. The two concepts exist independently, yet are not mutually exclusive. Laws, in principle, exist to maintain order and stability; to protect people, and to protect the interests of the state. Yet, not all laws are morally right, the fact that the legal systems throughout the world are dynamic, constantly changing and amending laws, proves that the legislative intuitions are imperfect while indirectly acknowledging the fallibility of our legal system. Therefore, should one be restricted to abide by the laws of the state, a fallible institution by nature, when it goes against one’s own morality? Morality is subjective view in itself, prone to err as much as its holder; thus, ones own morality cannot be a basis for a legal system. To negate all laws in favor of our own morality is a dangerous proposition. Civil disobedience can lead to chaos, yet the state can be just as dangerous, if not more so, when people follow every law with out question. When unjust, morally wrong laws are left unopposed, the consequences can be grave for humanity, and one only needs to look back through the last hundred years of history for innumerable examples of such. Morality can not be used to pick and choose which laws one obeys, but when a law threatens the life or liberty of an individual or collective group of individuals, whom pose no threat to the lives of others in their actions, or goes against the will of the masses in dictating how one should live one’s life, then the law is failed in principle, for it is no longer protecting the people. Therefore, not only should such laws be broken, they must be.

[unblock]

2. you can always cite examples of laws from nazi germany

or simply imagine a law that was so heinous you simply couldn't abide by it.

the crux of the issue is exactly where does one draw the line? just HOW immoral does following a law have to be before one ought to break it?

[Rush1184]

3. Why do laws exist?

I know this sounds like a pretty straight forward questions, but philosphicaly speaking, what end do we hope to achive by the existance of laws.

[satya]

4. How about MLK Jr. on nonviolent civil disobedience

Have you read his Letter from Birmingham Jail?

Good luck with your essay. Seems like a really interesting topic.

[Nikepallas]

5. No I can see your point of view in asking to talk about it.

May I asked in what type of philosophy thought was this essay bought up by. If you caught my drift. Is it in regards to Eastern schools of thought. Western schools was it dealing with Greek or is it just the ideas in general?

Because you can view it as if a family steels a loaf of bread is it really bad because the family was starving.

Or is it more political where This law X should be overlook because it is morally wrong. I don't know substitute Law X with Left handed people (I know sounds silly) But in different stages in history where being left handed was thought to be the work of the devil so if we bring that idea to modern times and say what if a person was left handed should they be stripped of a job that would require them to be honest like a banker?


Then I always thought Who's morality is the right morality? After all in a small Philippine island their is a culture where 16 years old are basically given the right of a person of the age 21 in our culture. They can sit on Tribal counsel they can marry and often young children's first marriage is often to an older person. The thought is the older partner would show the younger partner how to be responsible in a relationship while the younger person is their to remind the older person of the importance of youth and fun.

Also remember a while back when a family from like Mexico move to this country and the young girl was married because in that part of Mexico it was okay to marry at like 14 and they were forced to get a divorced or child service would step in. Is it moral to in force our law and ideas of marriage on another group. Take a look at the gay marriage thing. has that got you jump started into a debate mode?

[Rush1184]

6. The essay is on political philosophy (general)...

And the topic is:
"Morally wrong laws should be broken" Do you agree?

Personally, I agree, but I am trying to work out why laws exist? Why do we feel compelled to follow them when they go against our beliefs? And what is the diffrence betweend morality and legality?

[Nikepallas]

7. Well if I remember back to college the idea of a law was first invented

I believe by Hammurabi the Babylonian King to protect people from injustice. You know the eye for an eye idea.

According to American Heritage Dictionary : "A rule of conduct established by custom, agreement or authority."

Morally is a subjective thing I hate to say. In my belief -- if a moral law is negative to a group of people or to a class is it worth keeping? Let's face it their are common ideas of Morals like it is wrong to kill a person but that law is often broken in case of war or more interesting self defense.


Am I completely losing my train of thought?...hopefully you can see what I am trying to say.

[Not_Without_A_Fight]

8. I believe that morally wrong laws should be obeyed which

gives us much impetus to work to change them.

Also, morality is subjective and therefore the argument against obeying morally invalid laws cuts both ways. The KKK thinks that segregation (and worse) is morally defensible and therefore they do not have to obey laws that prohibit their actions. I think one of the best examples we have of working 'within the system' to correct morally invalid laws is MLK and the Civil Rights Movement as well as the movement of Mahatma Gandhi.

Of course, I could make the counter-argument as easily. Our country was founded on breaking a law (Boston Tea Party). Of course, 'we' would claim that 'we the people' did not impose the Tea Tax on ourselves -- that the 'British' did.

I think if we are going to break laws -- there should be a limit to the extent of disobedience we are willing to participate in and this should only be done based on clearly articulated principles.

[Cats Against Frist]

9. So it's just basically practice in making an argument, right?

You don't have to be "right" or "wrong." I would take the approach that "morals" are subjective, and that this is a stupid question, because who says what laws are moral, and who doesn't?

Deconstruct the binary-oppositional construct of moral/immoral, say a lot of things like "contextual epistemology" and "meta-narrative" and "subtext." ;)

Another approach is to basically take the idea of pitting the citizen against the laws of the "polis," and what it means to be a law-abiding citizen. You can talk about classical liberalism, the Constitution, democracy, the concept of natural rights vs. rights granted by the state, cultural libertinism -- the list goes on.

One philosophy teacher that I had made us write all of our papers in the form of questions -- which was a fascinating way to attempt to approach an argument. If you're teacher's cool and would let you be creative, you could try that. All they want to know is if you're coherent or not, and if you're getting the material.

Good luck. Here's a list of logical fallacies, so you don't make them:

http://datanation.com/fallacies/

[Warren DeMontague]

11. Complex Question, Deserves a Thoughtful Answer.

Here's my take on it, at least partially.

And I think your question "Why do we have laws" leads into what I consider to be a rational, ethically consistent answer.

Perhaps the question should be "Why should we have laws", which can lead to a logical answer of when laws are appropriate and when law breaking is appropriate.

In my mind, one of the primary functions of laws is to govern behavior and interactions between individuals. Most people, I think, would agree that a perfectly valid function of government is to prevent individuals from doing things to other individuals that infringe on their bodies, or their liberties, or are done without their express consent. Like, say, killing them.

Other laws seek to regulate the interactions of individuals even when all the individuals involved in an interaction consent. Like, say, prostitution laws. Is two adult individuals breaking that law, by exchanging money for sex in a mutually agreed upon fashion, the same thing as one person bashing another over the head with a brick? Most folks, even defenders of such laws, acknowledge there is a moral difference.

Still other laws seek to regulate the behaviors of individuals even when those behaviors don't effect anyone else directly. Here I speak of drug laws and other laws agains "victimless crimes". I don't want to debate people who say "drug abuse and prostitution victimize society and lead to other crimes".. That may or may not be the case, but I am of the opinion that when, say, Drug abusers or anyone else commit actual crimes, then they are criminals. But when people -adults- engage in consensual activities in the privacy of their own homes, with their own bodies, I question whether that is really the legitimate purveiw of the government. Any government.

(I'm also talking about individuals, here. I don't think that the rights which should be legitimately accorded to individuals should apply to corporations. Corporations have a greater responsibility to the public at large and also have a greater capacity for damage to the general welfare. Yet it is one of the upside-down facts of existence in Modern America that Corporations have greater freedom, in many cases, and far less responsibility for their actions, than individuals do.)

I am of the opinion that there is a legitimate basis for governmental regulation, or laws, and there are areas where a government has the capacity to overreach. Someone else brought up Nazi Germany. I think that is pretty obviously an example of unjust government and unjust laws that most people could agree on. Likewise, most people would agree that laws against murder, theft, etc. are just and well within the range of legitimate subjects a Government should have the right to address. I guess the question is, is a Government whatever it defines itself as in any given situation, or does (should) a Government-any Government, all Governments- have a set and limited definition for its rights just like individuals do?

And if you are dealing with unjust laws, is it appropriate to break them?

Well, I happen to think that the morally preferable way to address unjust laws- in my mind, the most unjust laws tend to be ones which criminalize voluntary assosciations between consenting adults or behavior which involves single adults and their own personal bodies- is to attempt to change them through whatever democratic process is available. However, civil disobedience is likewise a legitimate response, and I also think that, in situations where government has clearly overreached, breaking the law is also a legitimate response. When laws against interracial sex were still on the books, who among us would tell a couple in love who happened to be black and white that they should under no circumstances be together? While in many places that might have been the prudent thing to do from a safety standpoint, morally I think not. Likewise, any gay people having sex in Texas prior to the Lawrence decision were breaking the law. Were they ethically wrong to break what was clearly an unjust law? I think not, because the law was an unwarranted extension of government power into an area which I consider not the government's business. In such cases I certainly would not personally feel comfortable indicting someone who breaks such a law.