Cameron Miranda
Breaking the law is a contentious issue, with some arguing that it is never morally justifiable. However, there are those who believe that there are times when breaking the law is justified, such as when a law is considered to be morally wrong or violates human rights. Great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better. Vigilantism and terrorism are two examples of when breaking the law is not considered justified, even if the perpetrators believe they are providing justice or freedom.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The law is iniquitous | Breaking the law is justified when the law itself is unjust |
| Human rights are violated | Breaking the law is justified when the law violates human rights |
| Civil disobedience | Breaking the law is justified when it is used as a form of protest against laws that infringe upon the rights of certain groups |
| Vigilantism | Breaking the law is not justified when it is used as a form of vigilantism |
| Terrorism | Breaking the law is not justified when it is used as a form of terrorism |
| Animal rights | Breaking the law is justified when it is used to raise awareness about animal rights |
| Life and death | Breaking the law is justified when it is a matter of life and death |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Civil disobedience
Breaking the law is not always justified, but there are times when it can be. Vigilantism and terrorism are two major issues where groups or individuals claim to be providing justice or freedom. However, civil disobedience can be a form of protest that has a positive impact on society.
In some cases, law-breaking becomes a compulsion when it comes to life and death. Saving someone's life is always more important than obeying civil laws. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern.
It is important to note that while civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for change, it should be used with caution. There may be hard consequences for breaking the law, even if it is for a just cause.
Russia's Invasion of Crimea: Violating International Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Vigilantism
However, vigilantism often crosses a line and becomes a form of terrorism. While some may view vigilantes as freedom fighters, others see them as terrorists who are causing harm and creating fear. The line between vigilantism and terrorism is a fine one, and it is important to recognise that breaking the law in the name of justice can quickly escalate and result in greater harm.
Ultimately, the justification of vigilantism depends on the specific context and the impact of the actions taken. While there may be cases where vigilantism has a positive outcome, it is a risky and controversial approach that can have severe consequences.
What's the Difference: Law vs Regulation?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Terrorism
Breaking the law is not always justified. Vigilantism and terrorism are two major issues where groups or individuals claim to be providing justice or freedom. Vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan are extremists who try to bring justice by exterminating wrongdoers, but in doing so, they are violating greater laws. To some, they are freedom fighters, but to others, they are terrorists.
Other extremists like jihadists are even worse; they conduct violent bombings and self-sacrifices in the name of religion, destroying innocent lives. However, some might argue that terrorism does not necessarily harm civilians.
Terrorists are convinced that their actions are morally justified, but few provide such detailed justifications as Osama bin Laden. His arguments might be dismissed on the grounds that terrorism is morally wrong by definition and can never be morally justified because it involves the murder of innocents.
There were times in history when breaking the law was justified: great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better. Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law itself is iniquitous and violates human rights and conscience.
There are also cases where law-breaking becomes a compulsion, which is when it comes to life and death. Saving somebody’s life is always of more importance than obeying civil laws. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, then illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern.
Grave Robbing: What Laws Are You Breaking?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Human rights violations
Breaking the law is morally justifiable when the law itself violates human rights and conscience. For example, great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.
However, vigilantism and terrorism are two major issues where groups or individuals claim to be providing justice or freedom, but are violating greater laws. Vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan are extremists who try to bring justice by exterminating wrongdoers, while in doing so they are violating greater laws.
There are also cases where law-breaking becomes a compulsion, which is when it comes to life and death. Saving someone's life is always of more importance than obeying civil laws. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, then illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern, saving the person's life should and in such cases, law-breaking is most definitely justifiable.
Civil disobedience is another form of protest where citizens turn to when rules begin to infringe upon the rights of certain groups. While some may argue that civil disobedience is nothing more than a violation of the law, it has also proven to have a positive impact on society.
Federal Law: Understanding Work Breaks and Employee Rights
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Life-or-death situations
Breaking the law is a complex issue that often sparks debate. While it is generally agreed that vigilantism and terrorism are unjustifiable, there are instances in which breaking the law can be seen as a positive force for change.
One such instance is when a law is considered to be iniquitous and in violation of human rights and conscience. In these cases, some argue that breaking the law can be morally justifiable, particularly if it leads to a greater good. For example, civil disobedience has been used by figures such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King to challenge unjust laws and bring about positive societal change.
Another situation in which breaking the law may be justified is in life-or-death scenarios. In these cases, the hierarchy of law should be considered, and saving a life should take precedence over obeying civil laws. For instance, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, illegally crossing the border to seek medical attention could be considered justifiable.
Additionally, there may be cases where breaking the law becomes a compulsion due to life-or-death circumstances. For example, if a person is facing imminent danger and the only way to ensure their safety is to break a law, such as trespassing or property damage, it could be argued that their actions are justified.
It is important to note that while breaking the law in life-or-death situations may be understandable, it does not necessarily mean that the individual will be exempt from legal consequences. The law must be applied consistently to maintain order and ensure fairness. However, in these exceptional cases, mitigating circumstances may be taken into account, potentially resulting in reduced penalties or alternative resolutions.
Discrimination Law: Breaking It Has Serious Consequences
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, there have been times in history when breaking the law was justified. For example, great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.
Vigilantism and terrorism are two examples of when breaking the law is not justified. Vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan are extremists who try to bring justice by exterminating wrongdoers, but in doing so, they are violating greater laws.
Someone might break the law if they strongly believe that a law is unjust and have justifiable reasons to think so. They might also break the law to raise awareness for a cause, like PETA activists doing a nude rally to raise awareness against wearing fur clothing.
Breaking the law might be justified in a life-or-death situation. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern—saving the person's life should be.
