He's Already Talking About A 3Rd Term.
News0 min ago
The Law - A Question Of Morality
30 Answers
On another thread, Theland gave an example of a law that was, very clearly, morally wrong - Nazi Germany where it was law to inform on the Jews – and I used the Suffragettes as an example of what I think were ‘legitimate’ (so to speak) law-breakers. So …. being an upright, law-abiding citizen, what do you do when this dilemma is upon you? Do you do what you think is morally right and risk breaking the law and paying the penalty for that – or do you obey the law simply by virtue of the fact that, rightly or wrongly, it is the law? Please note, this thread is not about anyone in particular. It’s simply a question of morality.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Questions of morality can't really be answered generally, so specific examples are important.
One has to have a clear reason for breaking the law, a clear objective in mind, a clear understanding of the consequences, and, perhaps crucially, to be sure that the consequences won't impact anyone else who needn't have been involved. In general, the suffragettes were well aware of all of these principles, as were those who did resist the Nazi laws.
One has to have a clear reason for breaking the law, a clear objective in mind, a clear understanding of the consequences, and, perhaps crucially, to be sure that the consequences won't impact anyone else who needn't have been involved. In general, the suffragettes were well aware of all of these principles, as were those who did resist the Nazi laws.
It's a fine dividing line sometimes and I have often wondered when or if I would break the law - it almost always came down to protecting life and limb of those I loved.
However all that is speculation on my part gladly, because the situation has not arisen.
Some laws in some places are indeed draconian and one can almost understand those who rise up against them - very difficult to give a definitive answer.
However all that is speculation on my part gladly, because the situation has not arisen.
Some laws in some places are indeed draconian and one can almost understand those who rise up against them - very difficult to give a definitive answer.
History is (eventually) written by the winners - one person's "brave freedom fighter" is another person's "terrorist".
Only time will determine what the eventual label is - and even then that may well change with the passing of years.
On a personal level, I think I'd be talking to my conscience about whether I was acting purely in my own self-interest, or on behalf of a group that I believed in and thought to be unassailably right.
Only time will determine what the eventual label is - and even then that may well change with the passing of years.
On a personal level, I think I'd be talking to my conscience about whether I was acting purely in my own self-interest, or on behalf of a group that I believed in and thought to be unassailably right.
I have commented on the 'Tommy' thread, but am happy to repeat my position here -
If I thought I could genuinely provide some lasting benefit to society as a whole by breaking a law, I would consider it, and be willing to accept the consequences.
If I was simply an attention-seeking egotist who had no thought of legal consequences because I believed that my right to mouth off in public trumps the rights of the legal process to proceed without impediment, then obviously I would break the law, safe in the knowledge that my planet-sized sense of self-importance makes me immune from the consequences of my actions.
If I thought that breaking the law would risk legal process, solve absolutely nothing whatsoever, and get me a prison sentence, I would stay indoors with my mouth shut.
If I thought I could genuinely provide some lasting benefit to society as a whole by breaking a law, I would consider it, and be willing to accept the consequences.
If I was simply an attention-seeking egotist who had no thought of legal consequences because I believed that my right to mouth off in public trumps the rights of the legal process to proceed without impediment, then obviously I would break the law, safe in the knowledge that my planet-sized sense of self-importance makes me immune from the consequences of my actions.
If I thought that breaking the law would risk legal process, solve absolutely nothing whatsoever, and get me a prison sentence, I would stay indoors with my mouth shut.
If it's something important I would really disregard the law without hesitation, so I think really I live to my code of what I think is okay or not, which might make me a bad person but meh, I wouldn't dream of behaving in such a way that negatively impacts someone else just because legislature ( which by definition can only work well for the majority) tells me I must, but by and large I respect the governance of law and if I broke the law I would be perfectly fine with being brought to book for it.
I would respect those who put their own conscience ahead of the law, such as conscientious objectors in the two world wars, but by and large, the law has to be respected- otherwise we have anarchy. If I was in conflict between my conscience and the law, I would have to go with my conscience and be prepared to take the consequences of my actions. As I say, if my conscience did not allow me to take life (bear arms) and there was mandatory conscription into the army, I would be in a position that I would have to state my case before the authorities and take the consequences (although in this actual example I would happily volunteer for services such as medics, engineers and suchlike do without having to kill others.
"and who would choose to obey the law simply because it is the law and become a Nazi informer?"
With that one though it is far more than breaking the law since failure to observe the directive was likely to end in death for you, your family and even close friends usually via a camp.
Although your question is thought provoking I'm not sure it is possible to answer it until you are in the situation.
Perhaps come ask me in my jail cell when Theresa the Appeaser ignores democracy and fails to deliver a complete and proper leave (Brexit)?
With that one though it is far more than breaking the law since failure to observe the directive was likely to end in death for you, your family and even close friends usually via a camp.
Although your question is thought provoking I'm not sure it is possible to answer it until you are in the situation.
Perhaps come ask me in my jail cell when Theresa the Appeaser ignores democracy and fails to deliver a complete and proper leave (Brexit)?
With the benefit of hindsight Hitler was an evil despot - but many (including many thoroughly decent men and women from Britain) thought very differently at the time.
If Nazism had prevailed, then it would be Churchill who was the evil traitor and we would be celebrating the brave SS who rid the world of the Jewish Menace. I think any question of 'would you have resisted' is virtually impossible to answer at this remove.
If Nazism had prevailed, then it would be Churchill who was the evil traitor and we would be celebrating the brave SS who rid the world of the Jewish Menace. I think any question of 'would you have resisted' is virtually impossible to answer at this remove.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.