Can crime ever be morally justified?
- Thread starter Moebius
- Start date
Chief Walkin Eagle
Well-Known Member
Morals are not universal, laws shouldnt be either. Our justice system is completely fucked up and out dated, just like all systems IMO. The people should decide whats right and whats wrong.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
The people make up the laws now .. to a greater or lesser extent.
I'm interested in whether we as 'individuals' can justify ourselves breaking the law whenever we choose.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
Not "whenever we choose", because that would be simple anarchy. Conversely, law is never entirely internally consistent, even positing decent ethical lawmakers. The setup is simply too complex.
The history of bad/oppressive laws is as old as mankind. Strict adherence to the law is imo as morally bankrupt as complete disregard for it. But where to strike the balance ... becomes rather subjective imo. cn
The history of bad/oppressive laws is as old as mankind. Strict adherence to the law is imo as morally bankrupt as complete disregard for it. But where to strike the balance ... becomes rather subjective imo. cn
mindphuk
Well-Known Member
[SIZE=+1]"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
~Martin Luther King, Jr.
[/SIZE]
~Martin Luther King, Jr.
[/SIZE]
Moebius
Well-Known Member
well lets explore this.
If I was to 'let' someone rape my kid would I not be as responsible as they? Would any subsequent revenge even be logical?
also, feeling justified through emotion doesn't make it morally right? I'm assuming there are some people that wouldn't take action into their hands under any provocation and go to the appropriate authorities.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Law is ultimately decided by the trier of fact, the jury and/or judge. In Texas, born and rasied there, it is perfectly legal for a father to kill the rapist on his daughter, in passion. If the proscecuter can bend the minds of the jury that it proceeded into some kind of execution, the jury still gets to decide if summary execution was legal, in this case, within the time frame. They will do that by jury nulification. Perfectly legal.
So, this "going to the athorities" is not necessary in most states. But, the consequences for either choice, will also vary from state to state, jury to jury. You, as a citizen, are an officer of the court. You can make an arrest, you can detain, you can kill. You just have to face the music.
Finally, the moral choice is Not a luxury you are even expected to have in the "heat of the moment."
Moebius
Well-Known Member
So, in the 'heat of the moment' we can be excused for not adhering to the law both morally and lawfully. ..... I think many people might agree with this.
At the other end of the scale of a parent experiencing the murder of their child might be something relatively harmless like the possession of cannabis for personal use.
I'm assuming people here would believe its ok (morally) to break the law for the possession of cannabis and similar low level stuff. With this considered, it looks we only need to adhere to the laws in the middle and not at either end of the scale.
What does this say about our democracies? We vote for these laws, only to reject the ones that apply to us.
Would Anarchism not not better reflect our insistence on constantly break the laws we deem unacceptable?
Anarchism is generally defined as the political philosophy which holds the state to be undesirable, unnecessary, and harmful,[SUP][1][/SUP][SUP][2][/SUP] or alternatively as opposing authority and hierarchical organization in the conduct of human relations.[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][4][/SUP][SUP][5][/SUP][SUP][6][/SUP][SUP][7][/SUP][SUP][8][/SUP] Proponents of anarchism, known as "anarchists", advocate stateless societies based on non-hierarchical[SUP][3][/SUP][SUP][9][/SUP][SUP][10][/SUP] voluntary associations.
from wikipedia
bigv1976
Well-Known Member
Ok yup you are an idiot.
Dirty Harry
Well-Known Member
I think the human spirit is freedom, not laws. In the beginning there were only two people, one law (Don't eat the apple), and one law enforcement officer who is all knowing and all seeing...and still that one law could not be enforced.
In fact I think it is human nature to go against the rules. If your with a group in an office, you have a box, tell everyone you need to go do something but not to look in the box...someone is going to look in the box. If you would of said nothing, they probably would not of noticed or had an interest in the box. Telling them not to do something would cause some to want to do it because they were told not to. If you have kids, you know exactly what I am talking about.
In fact I think it is human nature to go against the rules. If your with a group in an office, you have a box, tell everyone you need to go do something but not to look in the box...someone is going to look in the box. If you would of said nothing, they probably would not of noticed or had an interest in the box. Telling them not to do something would cause some to want to do it because they were told not to. If you have kids, you know exactly what I am talking about.
Doer
Well-Known Member
Well, we just have to understand what is democracy and what are those limits. In the US, it's not, by design, a complete democracy. That, to me, would run full circle into aracrchy. So, I totally agree there. Our constitution, carefully federates the power of the people while leaving us all with cetain rights. The 3 legs of govt. More federation of power. Laws are made up, but the triers of fact make Law. Mob voting would be internet anarchy, for example.
Anarchism is a bloody form of govt. Volunteer assocations cannot be non-hierarchical, except in theory. Vendetta will rule.
Anarchism has never been tried. That's why it is just theory. Like Marxism and Libertaianism, it depends on the other guy doing the right thing. Soon, a bloody power struggle will arise. Some other power-ism will take hold. This to me is how history speaks of this.
Lastly, these ideas kind of smack of Legalism. That was in place in China in the time of Confucious. The State knows all. All Law are infallible. Adherence required without hesitation. Punishments severe. Appeals, illegal.
Moebius
Well-Known Member
I believe if you as an individual are subject to harassment by the police, if you are unable to effect your world, either through financial disadvantage of racial discrimination, if you can be held/detained without any judicial over-sight for years without being told of the charges against you ... well I think you/we live in a Fascist dictatorship.
Just because our nations don't adopt these ideas it doesnt stop people. Actually many people live by these philosophies on a daily basis. Hinduism, Fascism, anarchism, Marxism, ..
Its pretty much like that in China at the moment, only the other day I watched a BBC report on forced abortions carried out on women. You can't say shit in China.
polyarcturus
Well-Known Member
exactly when our laws where made the judges resided in the towns in which they managed the law. they knew everybody and they made their calls not only based on the law but what was going on in the town.
polyarcturus
Well-Known Member
you should have worded it more like the employer questionare
Is it Okay to Break the Law? :
A) all the time (laws are for squares)
B) somtimes (im still cool)
C) Dont know (im a pussY and get pressured easily)
D) rarely( still a pussy...)
f) Never (super pusssy sqaure)
Is it Okay to Break the Law? :
A) all the time (laws are for squares)
B) somtimes (im still cool)
C) Dont know (im a pussY and get pressured easily)
D) rarely( still a pussy...)
f) Never (super pusssy sqaure)
Geronimo420
Well-Known Member
Civil rights in the USA and the liberation of India are two examples of why it is justifiable.The principle of non-violent civil disobedience, or breaking an unjust law to make a point, is accepted all over the world. It has also caused very important social changes, such as with Martin Luther King and the Civil Rights movement in the USA, which was based on breaking laws that supported racism, and with Mahatma Gandhi in India who did the same with laws that kept colonists enslaved. The acceptability of breaking an unjust law in the cause of justice is a very important moral principle that is currently being well used in the USA by the Occupy Wall Street movement.
420IAMthatIAM
Active Member
i think it depends on the law ,if the law says 65 mph most people will do 70 or more at least in calif. they say you cant smoke cannabis yet we do it.
MellowFarmer
Well-Known Member
It is our duty as citizens to break unjust laws.
FR33MASON
Active Member
This is how I see it.
For a crime to be comitted, an individual must break a law.
A law is an idea that was presented to a government body which represents the populace by an individual or group and to which it debated into either being passed or is vetoed.
As such, because laws are an idea, they are open for interpretation.
For the most part, my country passes laws that are on a general moral consensus with the population. Every so often though, there are laws that are back-doored by an individual or small interest group to which it will make the average citizen go WTF?
Moral compasses can point the wrong way when the laws are being made up just as easy as when they are broken so yes I think that in some cases, laws are morally justified to be broken. in some cases, our lives depend on it. One would be of the subject that this forum is devoted to.
Here is another:
[video=youtube;1B-Ox0ZmVIU]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1B-Ox0ZmVIU[/video]