When Should a Law be Broken?

[Savage Idealist]

Is there ever a justification for breaking a rule? If so, when? How do we decide on what laws/rules to break and why?

 

[You]

When it prevents you from surviving.

 

[ajblaise]

When it's a victimless crime.

 

[theprocrastinator]

When it's a victimless crime.

 

[Shimmy]

When it's a victimless crime.

Yeah definitely.

In my book safety+health+freedom > common sense > fun > law

 

[Such Irony]

When it hurts people more than helps them.

 

[Oberon]

Per Henry David Thoreau, when it's fundamentally inethical or unjust.

 

[Aquarelle]

When it hurts people more than helps them.

Per Henry David Thoreau, when it's fundamentally inethical or unjust.

Yes.

 

[Athenian200]

I believe that laws should never be broken. If a law is unjust or harmful, it should be changed, not broken. If it's not unjust or harmful, then it should be obeyed.

That's an ideal, though. Realistically, one should always avoid breaking the law... but there are always circumstances in which breaking it might be necessary or the best decision possible. Hopefully in situations like this, a jury and judge will agree and ignore the law in some cases. That's what they're for, I suppose... to determine how the law should be applied.

 

[Oberon]

I believe that laws should never be broken. If a law is unjust or harmful, it should be changed, not broken. If it's not unjust or harmful, then it should be obeyed.

In the US, a judicial challenge can only be brought against a law by someone with standing to contest the law... in other words, a defendant. So if you want to challenge a law with an eye toward changing it in the courts, you have to start by breaking it so you can establish a test case.

Changing the law through legislative means is quite different, of course, and does not require a test case.

 

[Not_Me]

I see nothing unethical about breaking unfair laws.

 

[Thalassa]

When the law is unfair or impractical or invasive, and by breaking it you're not hurting anyone else.

Mostly in regards to drug or alcohol use, sex acts, etc.

 

[Thalassa]

When it prevents you from surviving.

Great point.

 

[Vie]

Breaking the law is acceptable when it is just or as a means of survival.

 

[Beorn]

You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.

Letter from a Birmingham Jail

Somebody should have told MLK to stop pushing his religious beliefs on other people.

 

[xisnotx]

I'd break a law if I thought the outcome(s) of me breaking the law would be "better" (for me) than the (possible) consequences. That is, if the rewards justified the risks.

 

[ThatsWhatHeSaid]

Wednesday, the answer is Wednesday.

 

[figsfiggyfigs]

When it benefits me.

 

[entropie]

Reasonable laws should always be obeyed because they exist for a reason. They convey the experience and wisdom of past generations and are there to protect you from doing the same mistakes.
Since men is not reasonable this tho doesnt always work. I guess the key is to understand some laws at least some day and to protect the rest of society from those who'll never follow any rules.

I dont believe that you can ever be that free in a society that you can want and do whatever you long to. You have to take responsibilities and charge towards the other members of the group to form a working apparatus. People who have the philosophy to say any law can be bended, generally have the tendency to be egoistical aswell and when an opportunity arises to do things in their own benefit. It is more difficult to abide the law and still be yourself than to rebell against it, that is the real challenge.

 

[Beorn]

I see nothing unethical about breaking unfair laws.

When the law is unfair or impractical or invasive, and by breaking it you're not hurting anyone else.

Mostly in regards to drug or alcohol use, sex acts, etc.

By what standard do you judge the fairness or justness of a law?

When it hurts people more than helps them.

I'd break a law if I thought the outcome(s) of me breaking the law would be "better" (for me) than the (possible) consequences. That is, if the rewards justified the risks.

When it benefits me.

Are you all familiar with the tragedy of the commons?

People should obey just laws not only because it is in their own best interest, but because it may well be for the common good.