Illegal = Immoral

[lillies_and_remains]

Is there an absolute correlation between the two?

Do people believe that anything deemed illegal has the immoral stamp immediately cast on it?

 

[FadingWhispers3]

I disagree with the idea that illegal = immoral. There are examples in christianity where something illegal is nevertheless moral. It is said that people should obey God (morality) rather than men (legality).

Good laws are made for the benefit of people, but not all laws are made to be good nor are all laws executed beneficially. It is not immoral to disobey a bad law, although it is illegal.

Christianity aside, I disbelieve that illegal = immoral.

 

[lillies_and_remains]

I disagree with the idea that illegal = immoral. There are examples in christianity where something illegal is nevertheless moral. It is said that people should obey God (morality) rather than men (legality).

Good laws are made for the benefit of people, but not all laws are made to be good nor are all laws executed beneficially. It is not immoral to disobey a bad law, although it is illegal.

Christianity aside, I disbelieve that illegal = immoral.

I *think* I agree with you on most of that although...

People should , and do obey God over man: yes, but I'm talking on more of a practical level, within society, where laws must exist and be obeyed to retain that society.

How do you define between good and bad laws? If, generally, laws are put in place to protect people, must we choose which side to favour as 'good'?

Do you have any examples you could share? I'm interested in this becoming clearer...

 

[merryheart]

Biblical morality: illegal=immoral unless the illegal thing has been commanded by God, In which case obedience to God preempts obedience to law.

If you don't care about Biblically, then by what standard?

 

[xMinionX]

Biblical morality: illegal=immoral unless the illegal thing has been commanded by God, In which case obedience to God preempts obedience to law.

If you don't care about Biblically, then by what standard?

Rationality?

If illegal = immoral, and always has, than laws would never change. Any push to change a law would be declared "an agenda to implement immorality in our society" and would be shot down on that basis.

For example: In my opinion, marijuana is not immoral. But it is illegal.

 

[.Mikha'el.]

I think that although anything illegal is basically immoral, but not necessarily sinful.

 

[lillies_and_remains]

I know in a theoretical sense God has power over law in the opinions of many.
I'm talking about real life, if a law needs to be broken for whatever reason, I want a better answer than 'if God commands it it is okay' because in reality that is not the case and to be honest I don't think that would stand up in court, not in Britain anyway.

I want to know if people agree or disagree that these two things correlate. I'm not working to any standard. I'm just interested in what people think. I feel that many things (and people) are uneccesarily frowned upon as immoral just because they have been deemed illegal for no good reason. People tend to point the finger on the basis of legality without actually stopping to think for themselves.

Is chewing gum immoral in Singapore?

 

[merryheart]

Rationality?

If illegal = immoral, and always has, than laws would never change. Any push to change a law would be declared "an agenda to implement immorality in our society" and would be shot down on that basis.

For example: In my opinion, marijuana is not immoral. But it is illegal.

Well, there is the God's higher law appeal. Also, arguing for different more rational law is not breaking the law in *most* countries... Where it is, that would be a case where the higher law takes precedence.

Anyway, Biblical law is for Christians to govern themselves with, not for them to govern you with. JMHO

 

[xMinionX]

Anyway, Biblical law is for Christians to govern themselves with, not for them to govern you with. JMHO

Exactly.

 

[merryheart]

I know in a theoretical sense God has power over law in the opinions of many.
I'm talking about real life, if a law needs to be broken for whatever reason, I want a better answer than 'if God commands it it is okay' because in reality that is not the case and to be honest I don't think that would stand up in court, not in Britain anyway.

I want to know if people agree or disagree that these two things correlate. I'm not working to any standard. I'm just interested in what people think. I feel that many things (and people) are uneccesarily frowned upon as immoral just because they have been deemed illegal for no good reason. People tend to point the finger on the basis of legality without actually stopping to think for themselves.

Is chewing gum immoral in Singapore?

If I broke a law, because I was adhering to higher law, it would be under the knowledge that an appeal to higher law would not save me from the legal consequences. I would have to be convinced that it was "worth it" in some way.

It is my opinion that I should obey the law, even when I don't agree or think it's stupid unless it would be immoral by higher law for me to follow the law.

It is also my opinion, that if you are in a country where the laws are "made by the people" it is immoral not to fight for *rational* laws.

 

[Blackguard_]

Biblical morality: illegal=immoral unless the illegal thing has been commanded by God, In which case obedience to God preempts obedience to law.

Um no, the Stae is an idol and its laws do not have to be obeyed. Its just a good idea to heed them out of practicality. ie. it may be my God given right to own an MG-42, but it is arguably not worth spending a couple decades in a cage for possessing one without a license.

Or lets argue that nature of the State. On what grounds does a State have the right to pass/enforce laws, collect taxes etc? Lets say there is an a place that has no State, how would one go about establishing a legitimate State there?

 

[WhoeverLovesGod01]

God's law first. Then we obey man's law to be blameless.

 

[lillies_and_remains]

Lets say there is an a place that has no State, how would one go about establishing a legitimate government there?

Lets not.
Lets quietly emmigrate there. Or at least keep quiet while I do.

 

[merryheart]

Lets not.
Lets quietly emmigrate there. Or at least keep quiet while I do.

 

[Blackguard_]

Lets not.
Lets quietly emmigrate there. Or at least keep quiet while I do.

good idea

 

[jgarden]

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?" Jesus replied:'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it. Love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:36-40)

Can laws without love be considered laws?

 

[FadingWhispers3]

How do you define between good and bad laws? If, generally, laws are put in place to protect people, must we choose which side to favour as 'good'?

Do you have any examples you could share? I'm interested in this becoming clearer...

One example of a bad law is a law that supports discrimination. Ex. laws requiring that people pay in order to vote (discriminates against the poor), laws forbidding X people voting because they were not explicitly given the right to vote, oppressive laws in general.

Not every law is clearly good or bad.

One way to test the goodness of a law is to run tests on sample population that agrees and watch the result.

One kind of bad law is one which singles out a group with weaker or non-existent political/economic power and exploits them.

 

[Alencon]

Um no, the Stae is an idol and its laws do not have to be obeyed. Its just a good idea to heed them out of practicality. ie. it may be my God given right to own an MG-42, but it is arguably not worth spending a couple decades in a cage for possessing one without a license.

You forget about rendering unto Caesar or did you choose to ignore it? While illegal clearly does not equal immoral, I'd be REAL careful about making a blanket declaration that the laws of the state do not have to be obeyed.

Or lets argue that nature of the State. On what grounds does a State have the right to pass/enforce laws, collect taxes etc? Lets say there is an a place that has no State, how would one go about establishing a legitimate State there?

That's depends upon your philosophy of government now doesn't it? In a Theocracy the state derives it's right from God, in a Monarchy often the same justification is given through the doctrine of divine right, in a democracy or republic the theory is that justification derives through the consent of the governed and in a dictorship it derives from pure naked force.

As to the original post, illegal clearly doesn't equal immoral because some states have passed unjust laws. The Nuremberg Laws of Nazi Germany spring to mind. Even in some western democracies there is a recognition that unjust laws may exist, or a just law may be applied unjustly. Trial by jury and the power of the jury to nullify provide a final safeguard.

 

[Kira Faye]

Not all laws need a morality behidn them they are in place so we have guidlines for our safety eg. It is illegal to drive down the wrong side of the street......now I seew NO morals needed for that but can see why its a law to protect us and set us straight. But I can see how morals are good and as such, but then again morals and laws are different for differetn cultures but u may find the basic and/or safety ones are the same. Did you know its illegal to have sex doggy style in tasmania (state of Australia) now thats a very funny law which migth have some moral ground back in the 1800's.

I think in england they are tryign to define the law abotu shooting a person who is in ur home, along the lines of u are able to shoot them if they are threatenting a life of u or ur family, u are nto however justifiable to shoot some kid who has ransacked ur home when they are fleeing down the street as was the case that brought this up.

There are many different laws, where as morals are a law onto themselves in away cause they are to us the grounds to live a good safe life.

 

[Blackguard_]

You forget about rendering unto Caesar or did you choose to ignore it?

I did not forget it. It's just that "Render unto Caeser what is Caesar's" does not mean "render unto Caesar anything he claims as his"

Matthew 22:21
"They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's."

So what is Caesar's?

While illegal clearly does not equal immoral, I'd be REAL careful about making a blanket declaration that the laws of the state do not have to be obeyed.

Its a lot easier to just obey God's law and only obey State laws to avoid trouble rather then trying to nit-pick which State laws are good.

That's depends upon your philosophy of government now doesn't it? In a Theocracy the state derives it's right from God, in a Monarchy often the same justification is given through the doctrine of divine right, in a democracy or republic the theory is that justification derives through the consent of the governed and in a dictorship it derives from pure naked force.

And I was was thinking more along the lines of private property rights and the Repblican/Democartic form of gov specifically, although it applies to the others as well. How does another person have the right to take and/or control (taxes and regulations) by threat of force what is rightfully mine? In a republic, my neighbors may be all for the State, but why can't I opt out? And don't respond with "if you don't like the gov, then leave" as it is my property the government has to justify claiming as its terroritory.

So I'm trying to reconcile a State with private property, and do not much care for State philosophies that are based on there being none. You do not really own something if it can be taken away at someone's pleasure right? Such as if you do not have the money to pay your land tribute the government takes "your" land away.

I think that perhaps Feudalism may be justifable as it is based on a lord renting out, or at least "selling" with conditions, land in exchange for goods and/or services and as part of the agreement gives the vassel protection etc. I do not mean historical Feudalism as serfs being legally tied to the land is not right as you cannot own someone. If the vassals could freely leave their Lords, then Feudalism would be a good system as it solves the private property issue and and has the free-market check of people being able to leave bad lords.