EPT"Civil insubordination. Could it be morally correct to break the law? Compare a deontologic view with a teleologic view."
Comment on whatever you think about it :D.
Philosophic question
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
88)GuMMi
Sweden720 Posts
"Civil insubordination. Could it be morally correct to break the law? Compare a deontologic view with a teleologic view." Comment on whatever you think about it :D. | ||
|
RowdierBob
Australia13537 Posts
 | ||
superjoppe
Sweden3694 Posts
| ||
|
alpskomleko
Slovenia950 Posts
| ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
perhaps you will define them before my research is complete. | ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
Deontology (Greek: Deon meaning obligation or duty) is a theory holding that decisions should be made solely or primarily by considering one's duties and the rights of others. | ||
CaucasianAsian
Korea (South)11603 Posts
In New Orleans after Katrina where people would walk into Circuit City and walmart, and walk out with 42'' plasma TV's, i don't think that's morally correct. It's all situational in my personal opinion. | ||
|
Lemonwalrus
United States5465 Posts
| ||
|
Wysp
Canada2299 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States44445 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17872 Posts
| ||
|
GaG[SharKy]
New Zealand221 Posts
| ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
Why is it morally wrong to break a law? Because when you do, you hurt someone in some way. The law that you are breaking may hurt people worse than you are doing by breaking it, but you are still causing hurt. I'll give an example of this: the underground railroad. There is no question that slavery was wrong, but those who practively sought to end slavery by breaking the law and helping slaves escape wronged those also wronged the slave owner and caused the degredation of society, further polarizing political views, which did nothing other than fuel the Civil War. So while the inidivudal slave may have been wronged by his owner a million times more than the owner was wronged by the underground railroad, the slave owner was still hurt by the underground railroad just as the slave was hurt by the very institution of slavery (though as I said, the slave was wrong a million times over more). And if the Civil War could have been averted had radicals such as those conducting on the underground railroad not done as they did, then there is grounds to argue that the societal damage caused by their actions rivaled if not even exceeded slavery itself. Of course, that is a huge "if," but when you think about it from all perspectives, you will realize that the underground railroad was not morally correct just as two wrongs do not make a right. The Emancipation Proclamation, however, was morally correct because it provided an official end to slavery, and after that point the interest of society had changed to where those who sought to free slaves were in the morally correct. So short answer: no, it's not morally correct even if practicing the law is even less morally correct. Thinky about moral correctness as a non-zero sum game. There can be situations where everyone can win and there can be situations where everyone can lose. An unjust law is an example of where everyone loses unless a legal means to ending the law can be achieved. | ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
Which is why this question is so hard to answer, and the reason your teacher asked it. I agree with CaucasianAsian saying it's all situational. But yet I don't think you'll listen to me anyways gummi ;o | ||
|
whatever
Mexico693 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
Even though value judgments are individual actions, it is still possible to define perfection very simply as a situation in which everyone's own ideal is realized, happiness for all. In this state everyone will agree that things are good. From this one can say hurting others, no matter under the pretense of law or otherwise, is unjust. Then, as an addendum, although one could have preference over one unjust situation over another, it is impossible to define this choice as a just act, since there is only one moral point that is absolutely defined, that is perfection. All else is confused and chaotic. | ||
|
merz
Sweden2760 Posts
On November 15 2006 13:12 whatever wrote: Yes it´s correct, who cares if you hurt someone in the way, you are the one you should care about above any other. If you go in life just thinking about others you won´t achieve anything. Your attitude sucks and is what will make this world end some day. | ||
vGl-CoW
Belgium8305 Posts
On November 15 2006 13:11 meRz wrote: What's morally correct is up to each individual..? Some great philosophers have argued that this is not the case. OP, you'd better listen to Wysp, Kwark and Mortality here. | ||
|
IdrA
United States11541 Posts
On November 15 2006 12:57 Mortality wrote: It's not morally correct to break a law, no matter how unjust that law may be. That does not mean that there are no cases where laws should be broken -- that means that the best case scenario is that breaking the law is a lesser evil than obeying it. Why is it morally wrong to break a law? Because when you do, you hurt someone in some way. The law that you are breaking may hurt people worse than you are doing by breaking it, but you are still causing hurt. I'll give an example of this: the underground railroad. There is no question that slavery was wrong, but those who practively sought to end slavery by breaking the law and helping slaves escape wronged those also wronged the slave owner and caused the degredation of society, further polarizing political views, which did nothing other than fuel the Civil War. So while the inidivudal slave may have been wronged by his owner a million times more than the owner was wronged by the underground railroad, the slave owner was still hurt by the underground railroad just as the slave was hurt by the very institution of slavery (though as I said, the slave was wrong a million times over more). And if the Civil War could have been averted had radicals such as those conducting on the underground railroad not done as they did, then there is grounds to argue that the societal damage caused by their actions rivaled if not even exceeded slavery itself. Of course, that is a huge "if," but when you think about it from all perspectives, you will realize that the underground railroad was not morally correct just as two wrongs do not make a right. The Emancipation Proclamation, however, was morally correct because it provided an official end to slavery, and after that point the interest of society had changed to where those who sought to free slaves were in the morally correct. So short answer: no, it's not morally correct even if practicing the law is even less morally correct. Thinky about moral correctness as a non-zero sum game. There can be situations where everyone can win and there can be situations where everyone can lose. An unjust law is an example of where everyone loses unless a legal means to ending the law can be achieved. not true, victimless crimes would not be morally wrong by your standards because they do not necessarily hurt anyone. also the fact that you define morality solely by if the legality of an action is kind of... stupid. its wrong to free a slave, but ok the next day because the Emancipation Proclamation was issued? and if you take away the assumption that law is always right than the rest of it kind of falls apart. if a person is following the law but doing wrong, then you are morally obligated to go against the law and stop them, to fix the wrong. it is not necessarily wrong for you to do that simply because it is against the law. it becomes a question of the morality of the law itself. there is also some room for debate even if the illegal action clearly hurts someone who is not doing something morally wrong. the example of a poor man stealing to feed his family is a good one. a poor guy steals 100$ worth of food from a millionaire, it is illegal and the millionaire did nothing wrong, but will barely notice the loss of a fraction of his money. on the other hand the poor guys family will now eat and survive for a month. wouldn't it be morally wrong to allow the family to die when he had the means to provide for them, especially when those means are only a minor inconvenience for someone else. | ||
|
Mortality
United States4790 Posts
On November 15 2006 13:12 whatever wrote: Yes it´s correct, who cares if you hurt someone in the way, you are the one you should care about above any other. If you go in life just thinking about others you won´t achieve anything. Be careful; what goes around comes around. You can run from it, but someday it will strike you back ten fold. Laws provide the foundation of our society. Whether they are right or wrong, that does not change. This is what your professor is driving for -- to recognize this and to weigh the value of the legitimacy of the law against the greater good of society (breaking the law degrades society regardless of the laws legitimacy or illegitimacy). Some may interpret it as your moral responsibility to perform the lesser of two evils if given only those two evils as a choice, but my counter-argument focuses on two points: 1.) you can always choose to fight the law through legitimate channels and 2.) when given two choices that are both evil, choosing either outcome is settling for evil, even if it is of a lesser form. | ||
| ||
