The Law - A Question Of Morality

[naomi24]

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.

[Ellipsis]

> 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.

Excellent.

[naomi24]

I'm not sure why you think that's^ 'excellent'. It doesn't address the question.

[rowanwitch]

I would choose conscience over law but luckily in my life the two have not been in conflict. If I had children it might be different it is easier to make a stand when no one else is imperiled by your choice. I think most parents would be the same

[maggiebee]

My understanding is that it is our "duty" to report benefit fraud. Despite personally knowing people who fraudulently make claims, I find that I cannot bring myself to report them. Not quite sure how this relates to the original question, but for me it's hate the crime but love the criminal.

[BagPussAA]

I seem to be the opposing view on this as I would obey the law because I am an upright law-abiding citizen and if I am told that doing something is illegal, then I don't do it.. regardless of what that is.
I do not think that the Suffragettes were right in the way that they went about things so I do not agree that they were legitimate law-breakers. I agree that, whilst we now consider that the actions of some of the Nazis during WW2 were horrific, the acts of the normal German people were done because it was the law and it was what they had been told to believe in. They would have suffered at the hands of the soldiers if they had not obeyed, just as we would suffer at the hands of the police if we break the law.

[kvalidir]

For myself I like to think I would have been resistant to the Nazi's, and for myself I think I would probably be prepared to risk my life and possible torture for an ideal, plenty of people have since time immemorial, the problem however comes with the fact that people like the Nazi's are all too aware that that's the thin end of the wedge, they know people for the most part are inherently good, so it's no use merely threatening them, they threaten their family as well and that is where people's resolve wavers.
I would risk myself to save people, but I wouldn't risk my man;s life, or his welfare, or that of my siblings or parents, so the easy response for your average despot is ' we won't hurt you, but we'll torture and kill everyone you love' therefore although in theory I'd be happy to live by my ideals and own personal morality, if corrupt laws and systems threaten the person I love, I would sadly be guaranteed to buckle, so i think it is hard to answer definitvely.

[bednobs]

the suffragettes bombed and used ied's on people. i think i would draw the line at endangering/murdering other people no matter how unpalatable the law was to me

[atalanta]

Actually the suffragettes often took a lot of trouble to see that nobody was hurt by their activities. They checked halls, meeting-places, etc, before they threw stones to break windows over where people might be standing. They did set fire to pillarboxes, but not where people might be hurt. They were themselves far worse hurt after Churchill became Home Secretary and authorised police brutality against them, even sexual assaults, too.
Read "Rise Up Women", by Diane Atkinson.

[Theland]

Surely our common law follows natural law? What feels right to us is mostly contained in legislation so we have no problem obeying. But then the authorities pass laws to control us and advance the interests of the few over the many.
Look at the fracking protesters. Communities and their local councils veto fracking, but this overturned by government. Protesters then get charged with causing obstruction of the highway, disturbing the peace etc, and they know full well that the fracking they are protesting against could be a health hazard and a blight on their communities.
Section 35 dispersal orders are another tool used by the police to disrupt protests and are another example of obeying the law to the detriment of our freedoms.
Excellent question by the way.

[Old_Geezer]

Everyone goes by their own moral compass, even those who believe they do otherwise. They simply haven't thought of a potential law that's even too horrific for them. This isn't anarchy, this is avoiding being automatons for authority and instead thinking like an intelligent being.