When laws are immoral is it okay to break them ?

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Many people seem to confuse legal with good and illegal with bad. Or they seem to be inconsistent, in that they "get it" on some issues, that people should control themselves, but grant exceptions on other issues where it is okay for a majority to control a minority without the minorities consent. Is this acceptable? Unacceptable?
What are your thoughts?
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
Many people seem to confuse legal with good and illegal with bad. Or they seem to be inconsistent, in that they "get it" on some issues, that people should control themselves, but grant exceptions on other issues where it is okay for a majority to control a minority without the minorities consent. Is this acceptable? Unacceptable?
What are your thoughts?
I believe people have a duty to stand up against immoral laws. It's the only way we can fix them. Unfortunately most people are lazy and don't want to get involved in something, especially if it doesn't directly affect them.:cry:
 

lowrider2000

Well-Known Member
i dont think that people should force there views on any one iv never been the type of person to peer pressure some one into smoking or doing anything.......but its only human.... its human to force your views on other people or try to make them act the way you want them to and its even worst when you have the majority people get caught up in what is rite and what is wrong and they don't realise that most of the time there aren't any side..........were i live every fucking weekend in down town on the strip were all the clubs are there are some religious fucks picketing with loud speakers and taunting people calling the Jezebel's and other shit why!!! just cus they have nothing better to do and they feel that they are rite and and have some sort of goal but all there doing is making a spectacle of them self's....... some say its worth it if one person listens to there scripture...... ive listened and i like it but no were in the bible dose it say " and then god said go fuck up everyones Saturday night" BS just my lil rant

any thing immoral is wrong to break but what is immoral............................ im sure your vertion of immoral is diff than mine you ask a crack head if crack is immoral they might say yes or no same thing with rape murder and everything else
 

tip top toker

Well-Known Member
Haha, you want to hear immoral? Just look up the definition of an Act :lol: Such as every "law" your government has passed, they have not passed laws, they have passed Acts, given the force of law to the governed.

An act is: A jurisdicial act whose validity may be independent of the existence of lawfulness of the underlying cause.

That's right, an act has power over lawful actions, such as cannabis. How corrupt and immoral would you like it to get? :lol:

People need to learn the difference bwtween a law and an act, lawful and legal, unleawful and illegal. Huge difference :)
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
Do you mean like for someone who's job is to kill people...is it wrong? even if it is legal? or would that person be justified in refusing to do their job or even attempting to prevent that job from being done? should we make things illegal for being morally wrong ? should things that aren't wrong be legal? should we try to enforce right and wrong with law? should we try to follow what is right regardless?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Do you mean like for someone who's job is to kill people...is it wrong? even if it is legal? or would that person be justified in refusing to do their job or even attempting to prevent that job from being done? should we make things illegal for being morally wrong ? should things that aren't wrong be legal? should we try to enforce right and wrong with law? should we try to follow what is right regardless?
I'm curious what people think about the relationship between legality and morality and whether it is acceptable to anyone to ignore bad laws. I'm also curious what would motivate a person to follow or deny a bad law and how people define their own morality.

I've run into people who proclaim if it's illegal, that it is ALWAYS appropriate to punish somebody if they break a law and often find myself at odds with that position as a hard and fast rule. Who and what should determine if something is made illegal?
 

beardo

Well-Known Member
if you are starving and steal food then you should probably not be punished,,,,,,maybe those who created the circumstance that left you unable to support yourself are truly the criminals
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
There are acts that are illegal simply because someone more powerful than you says so (like smoking weed), and there are acts that are illegal because they are truly bad acts (like murder).

This may help.

Mala prohibita (the singluar is malum prohibitum) is a term applied to any action is criminalized strictly by statute and statutory law. The phrase is Latin, and translates as wrong because it is prohibited. This class of crime is contrasted with crimes mala in se, the Latin term for "wrong in itself," and both are taken directly from the old common law system. Consequently, not much weight is placed on them in modern courts, though the distinction remains an interesting one.

Crimes mala prohibita are usually those which incur no serious punishment, such as minor infractions and misdemeanors. However, the primary feature of crimes mala prohibita is not their lack of severity, but that they are acts criminalized by statute in an effort to regulate the general behaviors of society. As a general rule these do not include crimes that directly harm the person and property of others. Consequently, crimes mala prohibita do not usually carry powerful moral stigmas along with them. There is nothing wrong in itself with a Briton driving on the right side of the road, but it is still a crime malum prohibitum in the United States. Some familiar crimes mala prohibita are drug abuse, drunk driving, gambling, public intoxication, carrying a concealed weapon, and parking in a handicapped zone.

Crimes mala prohibita are sometimes powerfully established in the traditions of the United States, and sometimes so short-lived that they can even be called experimental. U.S. legislation is ceaselessly criminalizing and decriminalizing. In an attempt to optmize society's performance and prosperity, the criminal law is continually undergoing changes on legislative and judiciary levels and, because they exist more firmly in the letter of the law than in the hearts of mankind, crimes mala prohibita are the ones most often transformed.
http://www.mojolaw.com/info/cl019
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
Many people seem to confuse legal with good and illegal with bad. Or they seem to be inconsistent, in that they "get it" on some issues, that people should control themselves, but grant exceptions on other issues where it is okay for a majority to control a minority without the minorities consent. Is this acceptable? Unacceptable?
What are your thoughts?
Do you mean unconstitutional? I don't believe government can be moral. Ignoring prohibition sure, ignoring the ban on pot yes again. Those were/are both unconstitutional.
Even though we were set up to be a nation of laws sometimes the "nation of man" takes over. The old saying a democracy is when 51 percent get to boss the other 49 percent around isn't what we were founded on.
Like Obama said, when the repubs were arguing with him, "we won it's our turn". Doesn't that say a lot about how we have allowed our government to take us over? Government is the servant, not the master.
 

Auzzie07

Well-Known Member
They must find it difficult, those who have taken authority as truth, rather than truth as authority. - G. Massey
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
depends on the law...Death penalty completely immoral..should not be enforced.....Marijuana laws...just darn stupid needs to be broken when ever possible...
 

klmmicro

Well-Known Member
I would expect law enforcement officers to ignore a law if they felt it was immoral and politically driven. There are many laws like this on the books. I have seen LEO ignore "pot laws" before, but I am not sure if that was because enforcement would be more work than the resulting (possible) conviction could have produced.
 

klmmicro

Well-Known Member
depends on the law...Death penalty completely immoral..should not be enforced
Agree, though I believe in the inherant right to defend myself...even if the result is death of the person attacking me or my family. The state should not be in the business of murder.

.....Marijuana laws...just darn stupid needs to be broken when ever possible...
Agree with this as well, though I am a legal patient and working within the law.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
if you are starving and steal food then you should probably not be punished,,,,,,maybe those who created the circumstance that left you unable to support yourself are truly the criminals

Ok than what if someone is starving and homeless because they are lazy. I personally know people that are perfectly capable of working but just don't. who is responsible for that circumstance? So if those people steal food, is it ok because they are starving. I think not. Everyone needs to support them selves. The only exception to that rule is the people that don't have the physical or mental abilities. Then it is the responsibility of all of us to take care of those.
 

crackerboy

Active Member
I know this will get a lot of negative reactions, but the bible says render under Cesar what is Cesar's. It says that we are to follow the laws placed on us. With that said, as Americans we have the right to change those laws. We the people have the right to vote and protest. We have the right to run for office and make our own laws. If we become complacent and refuse to act in our own behalf than that is our own fault. We must follow the laws of the land that we live in or we will have anarchy. Some people think this is a great idea (anarchy), until someone kicks in your front door and rapes your wife and kills your children. Then everyone calls on the police which they all hate until they need them. If we quit following all the laws that we don't like it will be anarchy. If you think anarchy is so cool just move to some parts of africa and you will see just how cool anarchy is.
 

londonfog

Well-Known Member
I know this will get a lot of negative reactions, but the bible says render under Cesar what is Cesar's. It says that we are to follow the laws placed on us. With that said, as Americans we have the right to change those laws. We the people have the right to vote and protest. We have the right to run for office and make our own laws. If we become complacent and refuse to act in our own behalf than that is our own fault. We must follow the laws of the land that we live in or we will have anarchy. Some people think this is a great idea (anarchy), until someone kicks in your front door and rapes your wife and kills your children. Then everyone calls on the police which they all hate until they need them. If we quit following all the laws that we don't like it will be anarchy. If you think anarchy is so cool just move to some parts of africa and you will see just how cool anarchy is.
I disagree with following the laws of the land....at one time the law of the land had it where one person could own another...If the law is wrong or immoral it should not be followed..Now if someone kicked down your door you have the right to blow that cocksucker to hell for he is coming to harm you/yours...and far as the bible ...please don't... that book has to many flaws and is used to control people..some laws are just stupid and need to be changed. until then ...break them as long as it don't hurt others
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
I know this will get a lot of negative reactions, but the bible says render under Cesar what is Cesar's. It says that we are to follow the laws placed on us. With that said, as Americans we have the right to change those laws. We the people have the right to vote and protest. We have the right to run for office and make our own laws. If we become complacent and refuse to act in our own behalf than that is our own fault. We must follow the laws of the land that we live in or we will have anarchy. Some people think this is a great idea (anarchy), until someone kicks in your front door and rapes your wife and kills your children. Then everyone calls on the police which they all hate until they need them. If we quit following all the laws that we don't like it will be anarchy. If you think anarchy is so cool just move to some parts of africa and you will see just how cool anarchy is.
"Anarchy is not always chaos. It can be simply the absence of a central authority that RELIES upon violence to stay in power, like government for instance. Many anarchists do not want to run your life or kick in your door, they simply want to run their own lives unmolested. I believe the term they use is Voluntarist. Speaking of kicking in doors, cops can and do kick in doors and arrest peaceful people don't they?
 

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Ok than what if someone is starving and homeless because they are lazy. I personally know people that are perfectly capable of working but just don't. who is responsible for that circumstance? So if those people steal food, is it ok because they are starving. I think not. Everyone needs to support them selves. The only exception to that rule is the people that don't have the physical or mental abilities. Then it is the responsibility of all of us to take care of those.

If somebody is starving and homeless that is unfortunate, but if they are lazy or have made poor choices nobody else should be made to
subsidize them. Certainly it is noble to provide charity, but to take from another person against their will is wrong...hmm isn't that sort of what taxes are?
 
Top