When is it "OK" to break the law?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

I think it's okay to break the law to protect the ones you love or when you're in danger.

Laws might seem finnicky and police might seem like "fascists" but at the end of the day seatbelts save lives and they've drawn a line in the sand for marijuana for a reason.

Palademon:
*Had a philosophy lesson today* WHEN THE LAW SUPPORTS THE BOURGEOISIE AGAINST THE PROLETARIAT!

Karl Marx FTW!!!!! Ex. Buying $20 scalper tshirts insted of $50 real ones at a concert
Also when your not hurting anyone.

strum4h:

Hardcore_gamer:

Assassin Xaero:
If the law is unjust or just play stupid

strum4h:
When the law is preposterous.

Ok course! When you don't like a rule, just pretend it doesn't exist and all will be well!

(sarcasm).

I do not think you know what preposterous means. If there was a law where you could not eat chocolate ice cream would you follow it? You would not question why it exists? if there is no reason for a law to exist it should not exist.

Right, but as a member of democracy you would be well within your rights to protest and demand that the law be removed from the legal books and attempt to get more people to join your cause, and if the law are hated enough then you can probably gather enough support.

Simply outright ignoring the law no matter how stupid is never defensible unless its being done for the greater good like say for the sake of saving someone's life.

It's NEVER okay to break the law.
Our governments have only the safety and well-being of the people as their first priority, and every law exists for that purpose - to keep us alive and well.
And if you break those laws, for whatever reason, you MUST be punished proportionately.

By now you've realized that I'm kidding. Breaking the law is acceptable when lives are at stake, or to prevent a more serious law being committed.

I think that people do not sometimes understand that the law is not always moral to follow, and inversely immoral to not follow. Sometime it is perfectly moral to break the law, other times it is not. I consider it moral for someone to abuse any substance of their choice, as long as they are not harming others. I DO NOT consider it moral, on the other hand, to rob someone or hit them in the face for no reason. So whenever it is not immoral to break the law, it is okay in my book

When the law is stupid and you won't get caught. *smokes weed in his house*

There is no definable time when its permissible, but basically I'm okay with law breaking when it truly helps people. Stealing to feed your children is good, stealing for yourself is bad. There's a whole lot of grey area, obviously, so you can't actually define it.

If the law itself is unjust then we should fight against it.

When the only person who could get hurt is yourself.

Break the law when it seems like the law is not being lawful. Mind you, you do this to bend it back into place, not wreck it further. Achieve moral highground and win approval for the act so the jury will be on your side.

When the law is so ridiculous as to make a mockery of the idea of laws themselves.

Or, when it's so outdated and trivial that nobody cares. (J-walking is a good example; Pretty much everyone does it; And in some places, eg. Parts of Australia, there's still a law against it, but even the police don't care.)

But then, I don't believe in the 'rule of law'. I believe in justice.

Thus, a law which is unjust, or counter-productive, should not be supported without question, and it is important to challenge whoever makes these laws to ensure they aren't making them for all the wrong reasons.

Still, even with those laws, there's no reason to break a law just because you can.

Personal responsibility is also important, and if there's a law against whatever you intend to do, you must make the effort to consider why this law exists, why you feel you need to break it, and above all, be willing to accept whatever consequences arise from breaking it, regardless of whether you agree with the law you are breaking or not.

Many things which are illegal shouldn't be. Some problems are even made worse because they're illegal. Conversely, some things should be illegal that aren't, and some laws are abusive in ways that do the exact opposite of what laws should be about.

most good laws are about correcting a power imbalance; That is, protecting the weak from those that are strong - Insofar as the scope of the law defines it, anyway.

Copyright law for instance, provides the copyright holder with protection against random copying. Traditionally, the copyright holder could not directly do much to protect their work.
Anyone that wanted to could copy anything they liked. This means that the creator of a work had no power to stop anyone from making (And even selling) as many copies of their work as they wanted.
Since the cost of creating something like that is mostly taken by whoever created it, yet once they have created it, anyone they've given a copy to can themselves make copies, the creator implicitly loses any and all control both over what is done with their work, and where the money (if any) goes. Further, the ability for anyone to make a copy quite easily means the work quickly reaches a point where any given copy has an effective value of 0, and thus the official owner cannot sell it, but only give it away for free.
But, since it cost them a lot of time and/or money to make the original on which it was based, it means they spent a huge amount of effort creating something which they cannot get any compensation for. Thus, no-one would bother to make anything unless they had some other way of supporting themselves and was just doing it for the fun of it.
Copyright law therefore uses the power of the government to make it possible for the creator of a work to define limitations on what others can do with it, and thus essentially artificially limit the number of copies, and thus the value of any given copy.

... Wow, how did I turn this into an essay on copyright? Ahem. Well, never mind.

Really, the philosophy is simple; Do whatever you feel like, but make sure you know what the consequences are, and are willing to accept them.
And try to remember who, if anyone will get hurt due to your actions. (that last part is harder than it seems. Especially with more abstract problems, like most anything to do with money.)

Michael Geer:
When you won't get caught.

Chaotic Neutral FTW! YES!

When the law cant do its own job right.

Well I'm Neutral good with a leaning towards Lawful good. Therefore, It's not okay to break the law, no matter how stupid, unless it is to save or help someone who would otherwise be in danger or hurt because of the law. Bend the rules if you have to, work within constraints otherwise.

aparently its ok to illegally go to another country especially if its the U.S.

ummm i don't break the law so i cant exactly say.

When no harm is done to anyone.

When the law does harm :D Real harm.

Law does not equal morals. As such, a law abiding citizen is not neccesarily a morally acceptable person. Now ask yourself, assuming the two following options are mutually exclusive, would you rather be law abiding or morally acceptable? If you answered law abiding, then congradualtions on not being morally acceptable. If you answered morally acceptable, then you now know when its okay to break the law.

Hardcore_gamer:

strum4h:

Hardcore_gamer:

Assassin Xaero:
If the law is unjust or just play stupid

strum4h:
When the law is preposterous.

Ok course! When you don't like a rule, just pretend it doesn't exist and all will be well!

(sarcasm).

I do not think you know what preposterous means. If there was a law where you could not eat chocolate ice cream would you follow it? You would not question why it exists? if there is no reason for a law to exist it should not exist.

Right, but as a member of democracy you would be well within your rights to protest and demand that the law be removed from the legal books and attempt to get more people to join your cause, and if the law are hated enough then you can probably gather enough support.

Simply outright ignoring the law no matter how stupid is never defensible unless its being done for the greater good like say for the sake of saving someone's life.

If it was a huge deal I would definitely not just ignore it. However if it is something very minor I will just ignore it. I am lazy.

When the law is fucking stupid or its just not smart to follow that law in that situation.

For example did you know that in NZ it is illegal to speed...even when passing another car. If someone is going 80-90 on a 100 road you have every right to pass them but you can't go over 100 to do it. How long is it going to take you to pass someone going at 90 at 100? No passing lane would be long enough and really you should be passing as quickly as possible not sitting on the wrong side of the road. I actually know someone who got a ticket for speeding while passing WTF. So technically I suppose I break the law almost every day of my life as do most people.

strum4h:
When the law is preposterous.

This. This is one of the few times in which breaking the law is not only acceptable, but when it should be ENCOURAGED.

Palademon:
*Had a philosophy lesson today* WHEN THE LAW SUPPORTS THE BOURGEOISIE AGAINST THE PROLETARIAT!

*Chortles.*

Oddly, I actually loved my Marxism class.

.... when the law tries to break me?

When the theory "no free lunch" is null.

Ethically? Rarely at best. Morally? Often. I'm not very ethical, but I'm a very moral person.

I will be quite willing to break the law under afew circumstances, one: if i aint gonna get caught. two: if either my family or my girls are in trouble, i will not hesitate to beat the living shit outa someone and three:if my life is in danger again i'm not gonna sit there and let some prick put me down i'm gonna flog him or at least try=]

As it is said many times in movies: "There's the law and there's what's right. You chose."
Most of the times the law prevents a lot of bad things no matter how stupid/restrictive it may seem(it's easier to prevent than to fix), but as we in Romania say, it doesn't have to be obeyed letter by letter, word by word. I mean there are obvious moral and social exceptions to a lot of situations, but you can figure this out if you have a somewhat normal moral compass.

As my dad told me:"You can do anything you want as long as you don't endanger yourself or others, socially, physically, mentally, financially, and so on. You get the drift. When in doubt trust you're heart and gut instincts."

/thread
I always wanted to do that. Tee Hee.

When the victim is Kotick.

I don't know man, you just don't mess with Judge Dredd http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itmNiTwHOsM

When the law has not been passed in a legitimately democratic system, when it violates human rights, or when it does not harm anyone - including yourself - to do so.

When the law is unjust, or stupid. So basically, jaywalking and some traffic light moments (like seriously, if I was at an incredibly visible intersection, waiting for a light to go green, and there is clearly no-one within 500 metres (give or take) in any direction, why should I need to wait for a green light? No-one would be put at risk, yet I would most likely be caught on a red-light camera, lose points on my license and get fined). Also, some instances of theft (though not mugging), where the only alternative is starving/children starving/whatever. Or some tresspassing laws. I mean seriously, get over yourselves some people, I don't harm you by walking slightly too close to your house, nor are you harmed if I need to get a frisbee from your lawn or am taking a shortcut through the carpark of a school.

Alternatively, punching someone in the face (like WBC). Seriously, the emotional damage they do to people by abusing their right to free speech should never be excusable, even by declaring 'free speech'. Seriously, if they were in Australia doing their hate-mongering protest bullshit I'd want nothing more than to instigate a country-wide 'gentle-nudging' riot as the entire nearby population of Australia forces them by gradual motion to our evil jellyfish and shark infested oceans. Then we stop at the shore-line and watch as they either get hypothermia from prolonged foot exposure to our salty ocean waters, stung by a jellyfish, or sign an internationally approved and enforced document which states that they give up their right to free speech if what they are saying can, in any way, be considered bigoted, cruel, prejudiced or extremist in nature (in case it wasn't obvious, I despise those people, so very much).

SpAc3man:
When the victim is Kotick.

well said

sheic99:
When you're a politician.

I have no words... You said it all :D

Palademon:
*Had a philosophy lesson today* WHEN THE LAW SUPPORTS THE BOURGEOISIE AGAINST THE PROLETARIAT!

The right thing to do isn't always the good thing.

PaulH:
.... when the law tries to break me?

In Russia, law breaks you!

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked