Are we bound to a social contract? Is it immoral to break the law, or just rules in general? Many of us, including me, were raised by our parents to think that it's morally bad to break rules. This is reinforced when parents tell us to do what the say "just because they said so". Do rules, agreed upon by society, carry the weight of ethics? To tackle this you have to be able to separate the action from the rule. Obviously, many laws prohibit you from doing things that are accepted to be immoral, such as murder. But what about crimes that don't hurt anyone? Say it's 3:00 AM and you're drive up to a red light. There are no other cars in sight. It's illegal to run the red light. It's not immoral to run the red light but is it immoral to break the law? Also, a very much related queston: how do you feel about Social Contract Theory? (SCT is the idea that we agree to obey laws when we make use of government services like roads, schools, police, mail, etc. It is used to explain why we are obligated to obey the law- we agreed to it.)
The law is an implication of man and therefore subjective to the culture and thinking of that man. The only objective law that can be declared would be a deity's law which has not yet been proven and still many contradictions are raised in this objective law by believers of a particular deity. Morality entirely depends upon upbringing. If I murdered someone, I would feel very bad, and would face the consequences of the penal system. However, if I were in Saudi Arabia and raped a woman, while my morality derived from the U.S. would make me feel guilty the full weight of the judiciary system would be upon the woman for attracting my lust. A Saudi would not feel similar guilt, which does not make him subhuman or wrong, just not in line with my traditional line of thinking. Thus, we reach the true meaning of morality and what it means to be moral. Self-consequence. Something is only immoral or makes you feel bad if you are either punished for your act or frowned upon.
Nitrous, you just made the fact of anyone else posting for your side of the debate useless. Anyway, I agree that it really depends on your morals. If breaking the law, to you, means future benefits towards say...your country's wellness, then that's a risk you're willing to take. I can understand that some laws may be naturally immoral such as murder. There's always someone that is going to falter due to a murder, so it's not going to be defined as "moral" in any sense. Although it can be beneficial to advancement, I'm sure it's not the best solution. Most teenagers break the law on a weekly basis and pass it off as "normal behavior" because they're just having fun. I doubt even once they think about their choices and if they are justified. On the other hand, I believe that rules were made not to be broken for a reason, and any defiance of those laws should in the end hurt you, because there's no need to break them in the first place. They're set so you can live normally without breaking them. What I'm trying to say is that I believe it is immoral to break the law.
Nitrous that's a pretty strong moral relativist position you argued. I kind of like that because that takes away any leverage a person has to judge another person for anything. But you're a bit off the topic I was trying to bring up... I should have made the Social Contract more of the center of the debate.
So no one has any thoughts on Social Contract? Do I need to re-phrase the OP? I feel like I'm not getting across the point I would like to have a discussion on very well. I'll be happy to clarify if anyone doesn't know what I'm talking about.
I think Nitrous summed most of it up rather well, sadly. What we need is for someone to come in here and utterly disagree with him (though intelligently, of course). I...will play Devil's Advocate, then. =D Personally, Nitrous, I disagree with your statement on morality being caused by upbringing. I believe the finer points of our conscience are indeed shaped by our culture, but I believe an innate conscience is inherent in every human being. How else can we explain humanity's constant need for justice, social laws, etc.?
Lance, its nice to see you. Well then my fat, metal friend (Quote from V for Vendetta) it seems I must disagree with you! You believe an innate conscience is inherent? Do you have any references to back this statement or at least a way to explain how this would arise naturally, or would this innate conscience require a higher being to deliver to us? The superego would be my best bet at explaining humanity's need to fit with social cohesion. The correct question would have been, "how did society start and why did it chose the morality it did?" It seems a tad bit unorthodox but for the sake of helping you out or maybe get an arguement going I'll answer it. The first society or how it came to be can never be discovered because it lies in prehistory, though educated guesses can remain. Society would have chosen not to murder those within its own "tribe" because the loss of one life is a drastic reduction in the population percentage, decreasing the chance of survival. Obviously, those that didn't kill each other had a better chance of survival and the genes were passed on. War can also be explained through a similar series of events. Cripple your enemy and you gain their food supply. That could explain the early beginnings of the superego.
i believe any law if broken for right reasons could be moral or even unmorall for not breaking them for example someone comes into your hoouse with a gun you have kids he doesnt see you and you carry a concealed handgun killing him might be considered murder but it could save your kids lifes do you shoot him if you killed a terorist and saved hundreds by doing so are you wrong or what if a world leader was planning genocide and you assassinate him would that be wrong our what about stealing something that was going to be misused our what if you kidnapped a child who was being abused
The basis of this argument is that it questions whether or not there is a difference between law and morality. I posit that there is an undeniable one. While law and morality are both rather important, I shall offer a few examples to this effect, though Nitrous has likely said all that I will say before. I shall begin by offering an example of a law that is not necessarily bound up in morality, and further this argument be also giving an example of an entirely immoral law. It is against the law to park next to the curb in some areas.It is also illegal to spit in public, in many places. But the question here is, who is being harmed if you park next to a curb, assuming you are not on any crosswalk or the like. Spitting in public may be uncouth, and may break a social contract to some degree, but it is in no way immoral- you aren't causing anyone any sort of harm, are you? And what of speeding tickets? How is speeding causing anyone any moral harm? Now, I bring forth the idea of an 'immoral' law. In some countries, it is legal for a man to beat his wife if she acts 'out of line'. I challenge any of you to argue that this law is actually a moral one-it would be interesting to see what one might say in its defense. In some cases, law is dependent on morality- for example, the idea that killing is, as a general rule, wrong. However. morality exists as a completely seperate entity from the concept of law. ====== ....I'm bored. Heh.
Not in my view, but it really depends on how you break the law. I'm not going to discuss the various extremely petty ways I may have broken the law (none of these being theft or vandalism), but I did not feel immoral breaking the law in these ways. I didn't exactly feel proud though.
If you get caught. If someone here at like, 15+ yrs old, told me they'd never broke the law, i probably wouldn't believe them. But no, I don't think it's immoral personally. Just not ideal. You shouldn't do it if it causes harm to another person. There. That's my view. My silly post is silly.
i like this kind of question. i often ponder things like this. personally, laws are BS. they are fromed from what society deems "moraly straight" at the time, most of these laws change. prohabition in the U.S.A. for example, didn't saty outlawed for long. I feel the is only one just law in the world that shant be broken and must be followed: Darwinism. As machiavelli said "the end justifies the mean". do what you need to survive, anything and every thing goes. man will try to put bondries and controll his world but it is an illusion. every civilization will burn by its newest generation. you see it in government all the time. So laws in my eyes are mearly a feeble attempt to contral those are a man. but as far as laws go i feel that those kind of laws are tolrable ps i was also raised in a family like yours predicide also escuse my spelling
I takes someone with low morale and high ignorance to break the law. When someone breaks the law, they do not care of the consequences and assume that they are high and mighty enough to rise above the system. Unfortunately, this is the case with some individuals, and this is why there is so much crime in society right now. In Toronto, about an hour from where I live, there is the corner of Jane-Finch, which is the most crime-ridden place in Ontario. There are a few shootings every week there. To break a petty crime like a traffic violation or most by-laws it takes very little;almost everyone commits one in their lifetime. To commit a crime such as murder, rape, assault, or anything of the like, it takes many kinds of people with one thing in common: ignorance. Ignorance of their own integrity, ignorance of what affects they will cause, ignorance of the consequences they will suffer.
azrius mentions some good viewpoints i think this question could depend on what part of the world you live in and mikeblair some people dont care someone that commits those crimes could be very intelligent and know and understand what happens when they do when president garfield was elected he was shot and killed because the man who killed him believed his ideas and plans were wrong he knew he would be killed for his crime but he wanted to make a change he hoped that garfields vice president who believd the same as te lawyer who shot him would keep the old ways but decided that garfields plans should be carried out
This example of why law and morality do not equate to one another really should have occurred to me sooner. Case in point that Law and morality do NOT equate to one another: For a certain period in the world's history, homosexuality was considered illegal. Being gay was a crime. Religious nonsense aside, there is nothing wrong with homosexuality. It was illegal simply to BE something. Mikeblair, I'd love to see you try to argue that gays thought they were above the law.
also if you were a slave owner in the 1700s that was ok but now youd be arrested not saying slaverys ok but if u owned a slave today a person from the 1700s would see nothing wrong with it there are some laws based on morality but many have nothing to do with morals
To be a good citizen, you obey all laws. To be a good person, you protest unjust laws and obey just laws. /thread