Breaking the Law

[Meshavrischika]

Is it moral/ethical to break the law in order to "stand for" an idea. (i.e. Rosa Parks thing)

Is it moral/ethical to not punish someone for doing so under the law?

Where is the line between being a voice for change and just flat doing something illegal?

I personally feel that breaking the law to make a point that something is unjust is fine... if you accept the punishment and it is enforced.

 

[jayem]

Where is the line between being a voice for change and just flat doing something illegal?

I personally feel that breaking the law to make a point that something is unjust is fine... if you accept the punishment and it is enforced.

Agree. Civil disobedience has a hallowed tradition--Gandhi, ML King, etc.

I'd say the line is drawn at violence. Damage to property skirts the edge. Harming people, particulary innocent people crosses it.

 

[Meshavrischika]

Agree. Civil disobedience has a hallowed tradition--Gandhi, ML King, etc.

I'd say the line is drawn at violence. Damage to property skirts the edge. Harming people, particulary innocent people crosses it.

but what is the def. of harming? can it be more subtle than say... poking you with a knife? say... causing you to not have a job or something?

 

[FadingWhispers3]

Is it moral/ethical to break the law in order to "stand for" an idea. (i.e. Rosa Parks thing)

Yes.

"Peter and the other apostles replied: 'We must obey God rather than men'" Acts 5:29

The tricky part is that so often people delude themselves into thinking that a higher cause or being compels them to some action when it is really they who desire it and exploit the notion of a higher cause to justify their misbehavior.

There are patriots and then there are greedy arms dealers.

Is it moral/ethical to not punish someone for doing so under the law?

Yes. In America, we have jury nullification which was used to set free people who aided runaway slaves.

Where is the line between being a voice for change and just flat doing something illegal?

Intent. Too bad only God knows the heart of man. The only thing we have to go by is what it looks like and how well they can defend their own actions.

I personally feel that breaking the law to make a point that something is unjust is fine... if you accept the punishment and it is enforced.

I agree. Especially because protest is so common that people hardly pay attention unless there is some sacrifice involved. To be punished for a value may do more good for the cause than to be freed... but being freed also implies acknowledgment that the cause is just.

 

[Meshavrischika]

so... fading... do you support jury nullification for say... murderers (like Candy Montgomery who admitted to a crime and the evidence did not support her story, but she was aquitted anyway, probably due to a lack of change of venue in a small town and because she was a "good woman" before the event) http://www.crimelibrary.com/notorious_murders/classics/betty_gore/8.html

 

[FadingWhispers3]

do you support jury nullification for say... murderers (like Candy Montgomery who admitted to a crime and the evidence did not support her story, but she was aquitted anyway

The jury may do as they please. But if I were on that jury, I would not vote for it.

And my reason why is because the law itself is fine and impartial in that situation, the punishment fitting (restricting the rights of murderers). The person was guilty by evidence, although the situation was lamentable.

 

[Meshavrischika]

do you support jury nullification for say... murderers (like Candy Montgomery who admitted to a crime and the evidence did not support her story, but she was aquitted anyway

The jury may do as they please. But if I were on that jury, I would not vote for it.

And my reason why is because the law itself is fine and impartial in that situation, the punishment fitting (restricting the rights of murderers). The person was guilty by evidence, although the situation was lamentable.

right, but the jury nullification you had above is the same thing on principal isn't it? (principal, principle... I'm a terrible speller)

 

[jayem]

but what is the def. of harming? can it be more subtle than say... poking you with a knife? say... causing you to not have a job or something?

If I have to be specific, I'd define harming as causing any physical injury--even a minor one. I think that crosses the line in terms of civil disobedience. And I'd say economic injury is in the same class as property damage. It comes right up to the edge. But anyone who engages in civil disobedience should pay the price. That's part of the message. And IMO, it's generally counterproductive to hurt other people and damage property and livelihoods. That's not the message that helps anyone's cause.

 

[LutheranChick]

Is it moral/ethical to break the law in order to "stand for" an idea. (i.e. Rosa Parks thing)

Is it moral/ethical to not punish someone for doing so under the law?

Where is the line between being a voice for change and just flat doing something illegal?

I personally feel that breaking the law to make a point that something is unjust is fine... if you accept the punishment and it is enforced.

From the WELS statement of faith:
'We believe that not only the church but also the state, that is, all governmental authority, has been instituted by God. "The authorities that exist have been established by God" (Romans 13:1). Christians will, therefore, for conscience’ sake obey the government that rules over them (Romans 13:5 'Therefore one must be in subjection, not only to avoid God’s wrath but also for the sake of conscience.') unless that government commands them to disobey God (Acts 5:29).'

Now, if you merely read Acts 5:29- '...we must obey God rather than men'- you will get the wrong impression. You must read this verse in context, starting with verse 27: And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, 28 saying,"We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us." 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, "We must obey God rather than men."


That is what I believe.

 

[wanderingone]

I agree with civil disobedience- fairly often the legitimacy of the action is only seen in hindsight- there is no other way in many cases for people without legitimate representation.

I don't put such civil actions in the same class as people who commit a crime and then claim to have a good reason for it after the fact.

People who take action for social change - like the suffragettes, like the anti segregationists, did their time, they allowed themselves to be hauled off to jail while they fought for a change in the laws.

Many laws have a large range of consequences - I think it legitimate to choose the lesser when you believe the law itself to be immoral, but it's not ethical to ignore the law. considering how many activists have been treated over the years I don't think many were let off easy.

when it comes to being a voice for change I'd say it depends on what you are being a voice for and how you go about it. What's necessary to create change?

I don't think jury nullification is the same thing, although I think it can be an ethical decisions depending on the situation. To me it should be a rare thing, to have judges throwing out jury decisions right and left undermines the "system"

 

[stan1980]

Where is the line between being a voice for change and just flat doing something illegal?

I personally feel that breaking the law to make a point that something is unjust is fine... if you accept the punishment and it is enforced.

Interesting question.

Nelson Mandela springs to mind. I've heard him described as a terrorist, but i think a lot of people would find freedom fighter a far more accurate description. Are military targets and government figures fair game to attack when trying to end things such as apartheid?

Closer to home (my home), i found it harder or indeed impossible to have sympathy for groups such as the IRA as they targeted and indeed killed many innocent civilians when i was younger, although i'm fully aware of their reasons, i don't think anything can justify purposely killing innocent people.

 

[Meshavrischika]

So what I'm sensing is that as long as there's no "harm" then this is morally okay. (correct me if I'm misinterpreting)

 

[FaithLikeARock]

Jesus was civilly disobedient. So I see no problem with it.

 

[wanderingone]

So what I'm sensing is that as long as there's no "harm" then this is morally okay. (correct me if I'm misinterpreting)

I don't think it would be perceived as no harm. I'm sure that when women agitated for the vote many many people viewed their actions harmful - and it did harm a basic view of life and the roles people play in it.

 

[Meshavrischika]

I don't think it would be perceived as no harm. I'm sure that when women agitated for the vote many many people viewed their actions harmful - and it did harm a basic view of life and the roles people play in it.

so it's fuzzy... (the line)

 

[Robbie_James_Francis]

Interesting question.

Nelson Mandela springs to mind. I've heard him described as a terrorist, but i think a lot of people would find freedom fighter a far more accurate description. Are military targets and government figures fair game to attack when trying to end things such as apartheid?

Closer to home (my home), i found it harder or indeed impossible to have sympathy for groups such as the IRA as they targeted and indeed killed many innocent civilians when i was younger, although i'm fully aware of their reasons, i don't think anything can justify purposely killing innocent people.

I agree that there's an important distinction there. Since I firmly agree with the Irish Republican movement I'd have no problem with the IRA if they only attacked military and government institutions of oppression. I see the Easter Rising, for example, as something to be proud of.

But I'm afraid deliberately attacking innocent civilians can never be justified, no matter how great the cause.

Speaking of this, why has no-one ever completed Guy Fawkes' plans to blow up Parliament? Possibly with fireworks like in V for Vendetta. It's a shame no-one's got round to it.

^^whoops, does that count as 'incitement to terrorism' or some other 'crime' New Labour's pulled out of their backsides recently? :o

 

[MoonlessNight]

I would apply something like the following criteria for civil disobedience:

1.) The law has to be fundamentally flawed and immoral. Intentionally breaking a good law to bring attention to a situation is not the way to do things.

2.) The action should be moral itself or at least morally neutral. For instance there might be a law that prohibits something which very well should be illegal, but the punishment is flawed. Breaking that law to expose the harshness of the punishment probably should be avoided, and instead tackled through other measures.

3.) Other means of changing the law should probably be explored first. If the law is the result of an innocent oversight, or a well meaning amendment or something like that it should be possible to have it changed through the normal channels, because no one wanted it like this in the first place. Breaking a law to attack the authority of a government in this case is probably not moral, unless other attempts have failed.

4.) I don't think that sticking around to be punished is necessary for the act to be moral, but going through the punishment isn't immoral either and is usually more effective in making the point.