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.

[bednobs]

suffragettes were terrorists.

i think it would depend on the law and its penalties

[jim360]

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.

[Mamyalynne]

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.

[sunny-dave]

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.

[andy-hughes]

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.

[woofgang]

I really don't know......I mean I would brain a burglar or a mugger without a second thought....but larger less immediate moral issues....I'd need to think and think hard first. If I didn't have family responsibilities then I think my path would be clearer.

[Old_Geezer]

Obeying orders (even those of law) is not any excuse to do wrong. One must do what one believes to be right. It is understood that humans are affected by possible consequences so one can understand inaction (or regretful action) in some circumstances.

[kvalidir]

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.

[Spungle]

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.

[Spungle]

PS, I really like your question, Naomi, and think it's really thought-provoking and challenging- thankyou!

[naomi24]

Spungle, thank you. You're welcome.

I wonder who here would be willing to break the law to become a Suffragette - or a Schindler - and who would choose to obey the law simply because it is the law and become a Nazi informer?

[sunny-dave]

I think it would depend how closely one's own ideology (world view) aligned with the current ruling power?

[youngmafbog]

"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)?

[sunny-dave]

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.

[naomi24]

sunny-dave, the question of what is morally right isn't impossible to answer. In short, should the law be obeyed simply because it is the law?

[youngmafbog]

Too bigger question to be answered "in short" though surely Naomi?

[naomi24]

YMB, It's a simple enough question. A 'yes' or 'no' would do. I'd say 'No'.

[sunny-dave]

My short sharp answer is also "No" - because there have been very bad laws and very bad people making them.

But it's never quite such a 'binary' decision when you are actually (as opposed to hypothetically) involved.

[youngmafbog]

Sorry, I disagree.

As shown by posts above it may well be a no but a qualified no with many dependencies. Hence it cannot be answered in short.

[naomi24]

sunny-dave, //it's never quite such a 'binary' decision when you are actually (as opposed to hypothetically) involved. //

Of course it isn't, but this is a simple hypothetical question.

YMB, see above.