Cecily Zamora
The law and ethics are distinct systems, each with its own purpose and function. Actions can be morally right but illegal, and vice versa. It can be morally right, and even indicated, to break the law in certain situations. For example, when the law is obviously wrong or incomplete, or when it looks like it protects the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged. However, when breaking ethically neutral laws, such as crossing a red light with no car in sight, you do have to consider the damage to the public good by undermining the codified norms, which generally benefit people.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| The law is obviously wrong or incomplete | It can be right to break the law |
| The law is influenced by various factors and is not necessarily morally right | It is crucial to question and critically examine laws |
| The law protects the rich and the wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged | It can be morally right, and even indicated, to break the law |
| The law feels unjust | Individuals are called to make their own moral decisions |
| The law is "ethically neutral" | You must consider the "damage" to public good by undermining the codified norms |
| The act of violation results in something much better from the overall moral aspects, compared to the harm it caused | You are morally right to break the law |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- When the law is obviously wrong or incomplete?
- When the law protects the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged?
- When the law is 'ethically neutral' and breaking it causes no harm?
- When the act of violation results in something much better from the overall moral aspects, compared to the harm it caused?
- When the law is influenced by factors that are not morally right?
When the law is obviously wrong or incomplete
Immanuel Kant stated in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim which you can will to become a universal law." It can be right to break the law when the law is obviously wrong or incomplete. This is apparent when laws are influenced by various factors and are not necessarily morally right. For example, laws may protect the rich and the wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged.
However, it is paradoxical to break a law until you are 100% sure you are ethically right, and there is no absolute system to verify that you are 100% right. This depends entirely on your moral framework; as a moral objectivist, the particular moment "when" it is OK to "break the rules" is arbitrary, based on each person's own moral viewpoint.
When breaking "ethically neutral" laws, such as crossing a red light with no car in sight, you do have to consider the "damage" to public good by undermining the codified norms, which greatly benefit people. For example, if a little kid sees you cross the street this way, you would be a bad example and (statistically but not measurably) cause harm.
Usually, we reason out that the act of violation, if it results in something much better from the overall moral aspects compared to the harm it caused, you are morally right to break it. For example, getting down to a railway track to save a child fallen there. But one of the many possible exceptions to the above is 'killing one innocent person to save thousands'. Because here, the one who chooses the decision has no right (as we generally assume it to be) to kill somebody (has no way to ascertain that he is ethically right).
Who Was Responsible for Breonna Taylor's Death?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
When the law protects the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged
The law and ethics are distinct systems, each with its own purpose and function. Actions can be morally right but illegal, and vice versa. It is crucial to question and critically examine laws as they can be influenced by various factors and are not necessarily morally right. For example, laws can sometimes protect the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged.
In such cases, it can be morally right, and even indicated, to break the law. This is because individuals are called to make their own moral decisions, which is a fundamental part of being human. However, it is paradoxical as you can't break a law until you are 100% sure you are ethically right, and there is no absolute system to verify that you are 100% right. This depends entirely on your moral framework; as a moral objectivist, the particular moment "when" it is OK to "break the rules" is arbitrary, based on each person's own moral viewpoint.
Kant stated in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim which you can will to become a universal law." It can be right to break the law when the law is obviously wrong or incomplete. For example, it is usually morally right to break the law if the act of violation results in something much better from the overall moral aspects compared to the harm it caused.
However, when breaking "ethically neutral" laws, such as crossing a red light with no car in sight, you do have to consider the "damage" to public good by undermining the codified norms, which greatly benefit people.
Breaking Laws in Concordia: A Step-by-Step Guide
You may want to see also
Explore related products
When the law is 'ethically neutral' and breaking it causes no harm
The law and ethics are distinct systems, each with its own purpose and function. Actions can be morally right but illegal, and vice versa. It is crucial to question and critically examine laws as they can be influenced by various factors and are not necessarily morally right. For example, laws may protect the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged, or they may feel unjust.
Kant stated in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim which you can will to become a universal law." It can be right to break the law when the law is obviously wrong or incomplete. However, when breaking "ethically neutral" laws, such as crossing a red light with no car in sight, an illegal action without immediate ethical ramifications, you must consider the potential harm to the public good by undermining codified norms. For example, if a child sees you cross the street this way, you would be setting a bad example and causing harm.
Ultimately, the decision to break the law depends on your moral framework. As a moral objectivist, the particular moment when it is okay to break the rules is arbitrary, based on each person's own moral viewpoint. It is paradoxical: you can't break a law until you are 100% sure you are ethically right, but there is no absolute system to verify that you are 100% right. However, it can be reasoned that if the act of violating a law results in something much better from an overall moral perspective compared to the harm it caused, you are morally right to break it. For example, getting down to a railway track to save a child who has fallen there.
When Does an Action Become Illegal?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
![[Paperback 2025] [Ethics for Behavior Analysts] 4th Edition](https://m.media-amazon.com/images/I/61lGRWhGlxL._AC_UL320_.jpg)
When the act of violation results in something much better from the overall moral aspects, compared to the harm it caused
The law and ethics are distinct systems, each with its own purpose and function. Actions can be morally right but illegal, and vice versa. It is crucial to question and critically examine laws as they can be influenced by various factors and are not necessarily morally right. For example, laws may protect the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged, or they may feel unjust.
Kant stated in his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim which you can will to become a universal law." It can be right to break the law when the law is obviously wrong or incomplete.
However, when breaking "ethically neutral" laws, such as crossing a red light with no cars in sight, you must consider the "damage" to the public good by undermining the codified norms, which generally benefit people. For example, if a child sees you cross the street this way, you would be a bad example and cause harm.
Usually, we reason that the act of violation, if it results in something much better from an overall moral perspective compared to the harm it caused, then you are morally right to break the law. For example, getting down to a railway track to save a child who has fallen there. However, one of the possible exceptions to this is 'killing one innocent person to save thousands', as the decision-maker has no right to kill someone and cannot ascertain that they are ethically right.
Larisa's Legal Troubles: Breaking the Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
When the law is influenced by factors that are not morally right
The law and ethics are distinct systems, each with its own purpose and function. Actions can be morally right but illegal, and vice versa. It is crucial to question and critically examine laws as they can be influenced by various factors and are not necessarily morally right.
For example, laws can sometimes look like they protect the rich and the wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged. They can also feel unjust, be obviously wrong or incomplete, or be influenced by lobbying from private interests. In these cases, it can be morally right, and even indicated, to break the law.
However, when breaking "ethically neutral" laws, such as crossing a red light with no cars in sight, an illegal action without immediate ethical ramifications, you do have to consider the "damage" to the public good by undermining the codified norms, which generally benefit people. For example, if a child sees you cross the street this way, you would be a bad example and (statistically but not measurably) cause harm.
Ultimately, the decision of when to break the law depends entirely on your moral framework; as a moral objectivist, the particular moment "when" it is OK to "break the rules" is arbitrary, based on each person's own moral viewpoint.
Unraveling the Complexities of Law-Breaking and American Identity
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Yes, it can be ethical to break the law. For example, if the law is obviously wrong or incomplete, or if breaking the law will result in something much better from an overall moral perspective compared to the harm it causes.
It depends on your moral framework. You can't break a law until you are 100% sure you are ethically right, but there is no absolute system to verify that you are 100% right.
It might be ethical to break the law if it is saving someone's life, or if the law is unjust or protects the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged.
Breaking the law can undermine codified norms and set a bad example for others, which can cause harm.
