Gavin Howe
There are many reasons why someone might consider it morally acceptable to secretly break a just law. For example, they may believe that the law is unjust or that it infringes on their rights. They may also feel that the law is immoral or that it protects the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. In these cases, a person may feel that they are acting morally by breaking the law in pursuit of what they believe is right.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Laws may be unjust or morally flawed | A law may be unjust or morally flawed if it protects the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged |
| Laws may be bad | A law may be bad if it is not well-accepted by the citizenry, or if it offends public sensibilities |
| Moral duty overrides legal obligations | If a law is morally flawed, it may be morally acceptable to break it |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
- Laws may be unjust, protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged
- Morality and ethics are not the same as the law
- Laws should be judged on their moral merits, and obedience is conditional on this judgment
- If a law is good, it will be easy to enforce. If it is bad, it will be difficult to enforce
- Laws and justice should be consistent with morals
Laws may be unjust, protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged
Laws are not always consistent with morals, and sometimes they may be unjust, protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged. This can happen when the political process empowers the wealthy over those of more modest means. For example, campaign contributions, lobbying efforts, and the likelihood of voting (or being able to vote) can all give the rich an advantage. The government may then attend more closely to those with more money, while placing the poor in a more vulnerable political position.
The justice system is supposed to treat the rich and poor equally, but in reality, access to justice is based on how much a person can pay. Poor people are treated worse than the wealthy and are more likely to remain in jail prior to trial because they can't afford bail, resulting in a higher conviction rate. They may also have their licenses suspended if they can't afford to pay off court debt, sending them into a cycle of unemployment and hardship.
Some people argue that laws have no inherent moral authority and that throughout history, there have been many immoral laws. If someone considers a law immoral, they may not feel the need to justify breaking it.
However, others argue that ethics and the law are the same thing, and that following the law will ensure one is acting morally right. It can be difficult to enforce laws that are considered immoral by citizens, as those tasked with enforcing them may feel discomfort and shame.
Gandhi's Salt March: Breaking the Salt Law in India
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Morality and ethics are not the same as the law
Laws have no inherent moral authority, and throughout history, there have been many immoral laws. Morality and ethics are not the same as the law, and laws may not always align with personal moral beliefs. Morals refer to an individual's own principles regarding right and wrong, while the law demands absolute subjection to its rules and commands. It has enforcing authority derived from the state.
Ethics refer to rules provided by an external source, such as codes of conduct in workplaces or principles in religions. Ethics govern professional interactions, while the law governs society as a whole, often dealing with interactions between total strangers.
Sometimes laws may feel unjust, and it can be morally right to break them in pursuit of what's right. If a law is good and well-accepted by the citizenry, then enforcing it will be comparatively easy, cost-effective, and morally tenable. However, if a law is bad and not many citizens care about it, or it offends public sensibilities, then it will be difficult to enforce and those tasked with enforcing it will begin to feel discomfort and shame.
Trump's Georgia Laws: What Felonies Did He Commit?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Laws should be judged on their moral merits, and obedience is conditional on this judgment
The law is the way society has formalised the ethical principles that we are supposed to follow. However, laws have no inherent moral authority. Throughout history, there have been many immoral laws. For example, laws that protect the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged. Therefore, a good person might need to break the law in pursuit of what is right.
If a law is good, meaning well-accepted by the citizenry, then enforcing it will be comparatively easy, cost-effective, and morally tenable. However, if a law is bad, meaning that not many citizens care about it or that it offends public sensibilities, then it will be difficult to enforce. Those tasked with enforcing it will begin to feel discomfort and shame in the performance of their duties.
Nature, by means of natural selection, decides if a group's morals allow the group to adapt. Good becomes synonymous with moral. If you doubt which are the rules of social interaction that led to the success of human groups, it is morals. Law and justice should normally be absolutely consistent with morals.
However, the exercise of the right to break a law that one regards as unjust is subject to standards of just and fair behaviour. For example, I may be correct in thinking that an ordinance against jaywalking is an unnecessary infringement of my rights, but this does not give me an unlimited right to disobey any law which I regard as unjust.
Understanding Mandatory Breaks: Legal Rights for Employees
You may want to see also
Explore related products
If a law is good, it will be easy to enforce. If it is bad, it will be difficult to enforce
Laws are not always consistent with morals, and sometimes a good person might need to break the law in pursuit of what is right. For example, laws may protect the rich and powerful at the expense of the poor and disadvantaged.
However, it is important to note that laws have no inherent moral authority. Throughout history, there have been many immoral laws. If you consider a law to be immoral, you do not need to justify your actions to anyone. If you are convinced that you are doing the right thing, you do not need to justify your actions.
Strict enforcement of the law can sometimes be unfair and of little benefit to the public. Enforcing a bad law can lead to legal challenges and court cases, providing opportunities for the legal system to review and potentially overturn or amend the law. It can also result in political pressure on lawmakers to revisit and reconsider the law.
Jesus and Roman Law: A Complex Dynamic
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Laws and justice should be consistent with morals
Sometimes laws may feel unjust. For example, they may protect the rich and wealthy at the cost of the poor and disadvantaged. In these cases, it may be morally right to break the law in pursuit of what is right. However, this does not give one an unlimited right to disobey any law which one regards as unjust. The exercise of this right is subject to standards of just and fair behaviour. For example, one may be correct in thinking that an ordinance against jaywalking is an unnecessary infringement of their rights.
If a law is immoral, one may not feel the need to justify breaking it. However, if one is unsure, they may feel the need to justify their actions for their own comfort.
Drones and International Law: Friend or Foe?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
No, it is not morally acceptable to secretly break a just law. However, it is important to note that laws do not have inherent moral authority and there have been many immoral laws throughout history.
If a law feels unjust, it may be difficult to enforce and those tasked with enforcing it may feel discomfort and shame in the performance of their duties. In this case, it may be morally justifiable to break the law.
If a law infringes on your rights, it may be considered an unnecessary restriction. In this case, it may be morally justifiable to break the law, as long as your actions are subject to standards of just and fair behaviour.
