Morality of law-breaking

What are the moral aspects of breaking a law?

How are the moral considerations wrt law-breaking influenced by the moral validity of the law in question?

Is the analysis significantly affected by whether or not you subscribe (to a greater or lesser extent) to some form of moral relativism?

Is the analysis significantly affected by your other philosophical positions?

Do specific legal considerations matter? Eg. whether or not the law is constitutional etc.





In the milk thread, Enoch mentions that he has no qualms about breaking immoral laws. I think I get where he's coming from, but I'm finding it difficult to arrive at a general opinion. No doubt this is due in part to my inability to completely dismiss other views on morality, as well as to my insistence on tying together the moral value of an act with its consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What are the moral aspects of breaking a law?

How are the moral considerations wrt law-breaking influenced by the moral validity of the law in question?

Is the analysis significantly affected by whether or not you subscribe (to a greater or lesser extent) to some form of moral relativism?

Is the analysis significantly affected by your other philosophical positions?

Do specific legal considerations matter? Eg. whether or not the law is constitutional etc.





In the milk thread, Enoch mentions that he has no qualms about breaking immoral laws. I think I get where he's coming from, but I'm finding it difficult to arrive at a general opinion. No doubt this is due in part to my inability to completely dismiss other views on morality, as well as to my insistence on tying together the moral value of an act with its consequences.

---

I'm going to fix my response:

1.) It is immoral to break your word. You're giving your word when you agree to live in a place and abide by those local and federal community laws. It's immoral to break a law.

2.) As a supplement to 1, I would say the spirit of the law is what is immoral to break, more than the letter of the law. when you violate the spirit of the agreement, that's when you're acting immorally.

3.) When it comes to breaking laws, it really should only be done when you're stuck between the position of following it being immoral, and not following it being immoral. In this case you have to choose the lesser of two evils, and I would contend at the end of the day you're not being immoral, because all you have is two immoral choices, and it can't reflect on you as a person for having to pick one. I would not count it a strike against them, if they ended up choosing the lesser of two evils. That's one case you can break a law.

Example: Law says have to kill all first born kids. You can either do that (immoral), or break your agreement to obey (immoral), i'd say you have the moral resposibility to the 2nd. Choosing it, as it is the lesser of the two, does not make you immoral.

4.) Lastly, I believe while many actoins can be morally be made okay if all affected party members agree upon it (aka what agreeing to live in a society is all about), but not any action that violate fundamental human rights (as in the right to not be used as an object, to not be demeaned, to not be killed etc.. anything that diminishes you innate inherant value as a person). EVEN if all party members agree, I still view it as immoral. It doesn't matter that you agreed to be shot, because you thought it'd be cool to die that way, an the murderer thought it'd be fun to know how it is to kill someone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

....


In the milk thread, Enoch mentions that he has no qualms about breaking immoral laws. I think I get where he's coming from, but I'm finding it difficult to arrive at a general opinion. No doubt this is due in part to my inability to completely dismiss other views on morality, as well as to my insistence on tying together the moral value of an act with its consequences.

---

(The milk thread :haha: )

He said he didn't have qualms about breaking laws that interfere with consenting adults engaging in mutually beneficial agreements, where potential harm or risk is known up front. I'm fairly sure he used "immoral" as a term relative to hampering individual freedoms, that the higher "moral" was the liberty to make our own decisions/choices, including any consequences, instead of lawmakers deciding for us. (If that's incorrect or incomplete, maybe he'll post to clear it up.)

Quote:

---

Is the analysis significantly affected by your other philosophical positions?

Do specific legal considerations matter? Eg. whether or not the law is constitutional etc.

---

There are millions of folks whose religious beliefs do affect their interpretation of historical documents (the US Constitution or Bill of Rights) and which rights, amendments, or laws they support. That's just one reason why we're seeing anything pertaining to homosexuality, birth control, and religious/moral conscience being challenged by states as well as SCOTUS. But there are also millions challenging the role and scope of government in our lives, regardless of religious doctrine, using a different interpretation of those same documents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

(The milk thread :haha: )
He said he didn't have qualms about breaking laws that interfere with consenting adults engaging in mutually beneficial agreements, where potential harm or risk is known up front. I'm fairly sure he used "immoral" as a term relative to hampering individual freedoms, that the higher "moral" was the liberty to make our own decisions/choices, including any consequences, instead of lawmakers deciding for us. (If that's incorrect or incomplete, maybe he'll post to clear it up.)

---

I don't think I could have said it better myself. This is a completely accurate and honest reflection of my personal views. Thank you, GGT.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Enoch the Red

I don't think I could have said it better myself. This is a completely accurate and honest reflection of my personal views. Thank you, GGT.

---

:) See, I really do read what your write. Here's hoping you'll post in On Defining Freedom, especially since "individual" freedoms in modern society has always come with some limits or restrictions. Everyone draws the line at a different point, based on some definition of freedom or liberty. I'm curious how you decide that line....

Almost used gun laws as a specific example, but figured that'd end in a mess. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

Almost used gun laws as a specific example, but figured that'd end in a mess. :(

---

What's wrong with that example? Gun control laws work, just ask the experts:

http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/...ck_closeup.gif

http://i1213.photobucket.com/albums/...guncontrol.jpg

:haha: @ idiotically misleading pix

Please explain how they are misleading?

"Gun control" as in not allowing guns onto airplanes, or into State Houses or court houses....that kind of thing. :rolleyes:

There is always a moral reason to break a law. But, if you're gonna do it, the trick is to get as many people as possible to agree with your view of morality on this issue.

Gay sex is actually a great example of this. It's been nominally illegal in many places across various periods of time. But gays in the West have successfully changed the greater population's moral perspective on the issue, rendering enforcement of such laws worthy of snickers or contempt.

BTW, I don't think gays did this single-handedly or something. And that other factors (EG the desire for straights to fuck lots of different people before marriage) didn't also play a role.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

"Gun control" as in not allowing guns onto airplanes, or into State Houses or court houses....that kind of thing. :rolleyes:

---

Oh really, just that? I'm pretty sure there might be a member or too of this forum...and of our Glorious Federal Imperial Governmet that would love to Gun Control guns to a complete ban.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GGT

"Gun control" as in not allowing guns onto airplanes, or into State Houses or court houses....that kind of thing. :rolleyes:

---

As if that's ever been anyone's position on "gun control," let alone yours. It's like you literally have no connection with reality, but at least it doesn't stop you from wanting to dictate reality to your 300 million nearest neighbors. :|

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CitizenCain

As if that's ever been anyone's position on "gun control," let alone yours. It's like you literally have no connection with reality, but at least it doesn't stop you from wanting to dictate reality to your 300 million nearest neighbors. :|

---

Maybe you should read the news more often, before you spout off about "reality". Check out AZ legislature passing very liberal gun laws, and Gov. Brewer's veto. :donkey:

So, just Court Houses, Airplanes and that sort of thing?

How about public carry? Concealed? Rifles? Shot Guns?

I don't find the pic misleading at all. The above tyrants(mass murderers) went straight to total gun control. As that wont fly here...the plan is gun control in small bites...just like a certain USSR leader said about Socialism.

It's like a supergodwin

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

It's like a supergodwin

---

How so? Are we not allowed to look at any history to teach us how things happen, or just the inconvenient history?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

How so? Are we not allowed to look at any history to teach us how things happen, or just the inconvenient history?

---

So let me get this straight, your position is that gun control in and of itself brings about the reigns of terror led by those men? :confused:

All that picture is good for is as a cheap shot, the kind of useless and usually fallacious guilt-by-association argument that's so appealing as to have inspired one of the most well-supported laws of the internet. Of course there's no denying the truth of the statement made by the pic; my complaint is with how that truth is used in the present discussion. It'd be different if you wanted to use it to discredit vegetarianism, but this is about something important. Let's be sparing with the use of reductio ad hitlerum please. You guys are perfectly capable of holding your own in the gun-control debate without resorting to nonsense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dreadnaught

There is always a moral reason to break a law. But, if you're gonna do it, the trick is to get as many people as possible to agree with your view of morality on this issue.

Gay sex is actually a great example of this. It's been nominally illegal in many places across various periods of time. But gays in the West have successfully changed the greater population's moral perspective on the issue, rendering enforcement of such laws worthy of snickers or contempt.

BTW, I don't think gays did this single-handedly or something. And that other factors (EG the desire for straights to fuck lots of different people before marriage) didn't also play a role.

---

I agree with your position. What I'm asking is whether or not it can be at all immoral/wrong/unethical/unjust to break a law you believe to be immoral!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

So let me get this straight, your position is that gun control in and of itself brings about the reigns of terror led by those men? :confused:

---

No, you are willfully (I think) missing the point. The douchebags of history in the pic enjoyed the total gun control they had. I'm saying that as that would never fly here in the US, the gun control hysterics will do it piecemeal. I will say that an armed (and informed) populace is hard to march to the gas chamber, or the killing fields, or the gulag.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

All that picture is good for is as a cheap shot, the kind of useless and usually fallacious guilt-by-association argument that's so appealing as to have inspired one of the most well-supported laws of the internet. Of course there's no denying the truth of the statement made by the pic; my complaint is with how that truth is used in the present discussion. It'd be different if you wanted to use it to discredit vegetarianism, but this is about something important. Let's be sparing with the use of reductio ad hitlerum please. You guys are perfectly capable of holding your own in the gun-control debate without resorting to nonsense.

---

Oh the interwebs support it...it MUST be right/important.

And again, you think it's nonsense cause it's inconvenient. A broken clock is right twice a day...and so can a Godwin...

Would you feel better if Cain took out the pic of Hitler and left the rest?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Veldan Rath

No, you are willfully (I think) missing the point. The douchebags of history in the pic enjoyed the total gun control they had. I'm saying that as that would never fly here in the US, the gun control hysterics will do it piecemeal. I will say that an armed (and informed) populace is hard to march to the gas chamber, or the killing fields, or the gulag.

---

With or without stricter gun control the US isn't even remotely close to being an actual totalitarian hellhole like the ones that pic alludes to, nor is it particularly likely to become one.

Quote:

---

Oh the interwebs support it...it MUST be right/important.

---

:confused:

Er, what? :confused:

Quote:

---

And again, you think it's nonsense cause it's inconvenient. A broken clock is right twice a day...and so can a Godwin...

---

I think it's nonsense because it is nonsense. To turn your argument back on you, a broken clock is right twice a day and so is Hitler. By which I mean that just because Hitler or Idi Amin or some other evil nutjob enjoyed something doesn't mean it's an evil thing in and of itself or that it will turn eg. the US into Nazi Germany. Hitler

As I said...small pieces.

The US will not go into the Abyss all at once, just slowly...slowly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=VgrktRgjBXk

There were plenty of privately owned guns in Bosnia, and they were still very capable of genocide. And Darfur. And your argument is still stupid. Gun control had nothing to do with them being mass murdering dictators.

Then why would so many despots want the citizens unarmed? You think Mao really cared about the protecting the common man from random gun violence?

Presumable because there had been a civil war and it is in the interests of the.victorious one not to have millions of armed people in a country with a lot of instability. Not to mention,ethnic tensions. He may not have cared about the common man, but he probably did care about national stability.

i.e. make sure HIS government stays in place...wouldn't want to have another revolution once the people find out that you are just as bad as the bastards you replaced...

There's a gun control thread ya know....;)

Not just about power, stability in general is good for your country. Bands of people with guns in a volatile country is generally not a good idea.

I'd also like to point out that there are plenty of countries (far more in fact) with gun control laws that are not totalitarian regimes, and in fact have lower crime rates than the US. But hey, why not cherry pick some dictators.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

What I'm asking is whether or not it can be at all immoral/wrong/unethical/unjust to break a law you believe to be immoral!

---

Doesn't that depend on which law one finds to be wrong, let alone immoral? I technically break the law all the time, when I drive over the speed limit :p but I don't consider that immoral. Some people find income taxes immoral and unjust, and break the law by not filing/paying IRS. That could be considered unethical, because they're benefiting from public infrastructure, national security etc, without contributing to revenue. Others just find ways to use the tax code to legally avoid paying income taxes (off-shore accounts, carried interest trades, stock options and dividend income in lieu of payroll wages). That just means our tax code is unjust and full of loopholes, not that taxes themselves are immoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

I agree with your position. What I'm asking is whether or not it can be at all immoral/wrong/unethical/unjust to break a law you believe to be immoral!

---

Interesting. Just spent a few minutes thinking, and I suppose it can be immoral to break a law if you feel it to be immoral. The main circumstance I imagine this happening is if breaking that immoral law also breaks another law that isn't immoral. Or needlessly harms someone.

That said, do you have a particular scenario in mind? Maybe I'm just groggy in the morning over here, but I'm struggling to think of one.

Let's say.....

a state Governor, presiding in a state where the Death Penalty is not only legal...but required under certain circumstances....decides to use their veto or pardoning powers for a Death Row inmate, because they personally believe capital punishment is immoral or unethical. Is that Governor acting immorally, or unethically, by refusing to enact court-ordered punishment that s/he feels comes from immoral or unethical legislation?

How would a Governor like Haley Barbour fit into this legal-moral dilemma? Was he acting ethically and morally, by giving executive pardons to convicted murderers/rapists/felons before he left office? Even though it was perfectly "legal" to do so, was it the right thing to do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aimless

All that picture is good for is as a cheap shot, the kind of useless and usually fallacious guilt-by-association

---

Or maybe it speaks to the actual intent of gun control. It's hardly guilt by association to point out that this intent is rather the whole point of totalitarianism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

There were plenty of privately owned guns in Bosnia, and they were still very capable of genocide. And Darfur. And your argument is still stupid. Gun control had nothing to do with them being mass murdering dictators.

---

And as China and North Korea both have elections, clearly democracy is stupid too, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flixy

Bands of people with guns in a volatile country is generally not a good idea.

---

Indeed not, but the police and military are here to stay.