Is it ever okay to break the law?

Status
Not open for further replies.

NarutoActor

The rocks cry out to me
    • 1,974
    Posts
    16
    Years
    Is it justifiable to break the law? There are a few ways you can perceive this message.

    1. It is okay to break any law that you disagree with, because essentially you chose your own path, and as long as there are no ramifications, it is you duty to survive, thrive, and prosper in any way you can.

    2. It is okay to break the law, when you are put in the position to by the same people (or person) who made the (or that) law.
    (Boss sais never do X, later that day he tells you to do X)

    3. It is okay to break the law, if it means not breaking another law. Sometimes law A is in direct conflict with law B, as long as you maintain one of the laws, it is justifiable.

    4. It is okay to break the law, if you are under cretin circumstance. An improvised women steals bread for her children.

    5. It is never okay to break the law, the law is there for a reason, it is there to maintain justice, and peace. If the law as done you some harm, it is up to the government to fix that wrong, not the individual.

    6. Some other scenario, that you think is the justifiable time/occurrence to break/or not break the law.
     
    NarutoActor said:
    My personal opinions:

    1. It is okay to break any law that you disagree with, because essentially you chose your own path, and as long as there are no ramifications, it is you duty to survive, thrive, and prosper in any way you can.
    Not ok. Just because you can get away with something does not mean you should. Laws are there for a reason.

    2. It is okay to break the law, when you are put in the position to by the same people (or person) who made the (or that) law.
    (Boss sais never do X, later that day he tells you to do X)
    I feel like that's ok, especially on a smaller scale like the example. And if the government repeals a law, by all means, break that "law". If they're telling you to break it while it still is in effect, well there must be a reason for it, so I don't see why not.

    3. It is okay to break the law, if it means not breaking another law. Sometimes law A is in direct conflict with law B, as long as you maintain one of the laws, it is justifiable.
    If there is no way out of the situation (especially if it's dire) I say it's fine. Take the lesser of two evils.

    4. It is okay to break the law, if you are under cretin circumstance. An improvised women steals bread for her children.
    Not ok. You may be at a disadvantage, but something like stealing ultimately hurts someone else. I'm not saying let people starve or suffer, because emotionally I wouldn't have a problem with that. But logically (not the best word), it's not ok to steal for your own benefit.

    5. It is never okay to break the law, the law is there for a reason, it is there to maintain justice, and peace. If the law as done you some harm, it is up to the government to fix that wrong, not the individual.
    Well I just refuted this claim above in a couple spots.

    6. Some other scenario, that you think is the justifiable time/occurrence to break/or not break the law.
    I can only think of like blackmail been watching too much Pretty Little Liars lol. But if someone is like forcing you to do something, especially breaking a law that doesn't have as dire consequences, then I say go for it.
    Click to expand...
    Apparently I don't have enough characters. ._.
     
    ... and how many people J walk? :)
     
    Yes, it is sometimes justifiable to break the law, and I think to say "no" is an incredibly immature way to think. Literally, it is a younger mindset that believes it is not OK.

    I watched this TV show once - it might have been at school actually - where they were talking about how children's minds see things in black and white when they're younger and then as they get older and their minds develop, the shades of grey become apparent.

    The study in the TV show had the examiners ask a group of (I think) thirty children aged 8 years old the following scenario:

    "A man has a very sick wife who is about to die. There is medicine that will cure her disease in a special store in the middle of the city, but it costs $1000 that he does not have. Is it OK for the man to steal the medicine?"

    The answer from all of the children was a resounding 'no', because they are taught that it is illegal and always wrong to steal. When they asked the same children that question four years later, however, their answers were far less definite. They saw that the extenuating circumstances may justify the act of theft and were far less sure of how to respond.

    I would have been around 14 or 15 when I watched this and I disagreed strongly when I was watching the children's initial answers.

    I just thought that might be relevant to post here lol
     
    Shining Raichu said:
    Yes, it is sometimes justifiable to break the law, and I think to say "no" is an incredibly immature way to think. Literally, it is a younger mindset that believes it is not OK.

    I watched this TV show once - it might have been at school actually - where they were talking about how children's minds see things in black and white when they're younger and then as they get older and their minds develop, the shades of grey become apparent.

    The study in the TV show had the examiners ask a group of (I think) thirty children aged 8 years old the following scenario:

    "A man has a very sick wife who is about to die. There is medicine that will cure her disease in a special store in the middle of the city, but it costs $1000 that he does not have. Is it OK for the man to steal the medicine?"

    The answer from all of the children was a resounding 'no', because they are taught that it is illegal and always wrong to steal. When they asked the same children that question four years later, however, their answers were far less definite. They saw that the extenuating circumstances may justify the act of theft and were far less sure of how to respond.

    I would have been around 14 or 15 when I watched this and I disagreed strongly when I was watching the children's initial answers.

    I just thought that might be relevant to post here lol
    Click to expand...

    That example shows a situation where it was necessary to break the law, but was it really ok? And even the necessity of stealing that medicine is debatable - would it have not been better for the man to get a loan to but the medicine? It would have certainly saved him a few years imprisonment. I think that's a sort of weak example when there were other things he could have done.

    I... also think that to say that being law-abiding is a juvenile way of thinking is a stretch too far. While I can't argue with the findings of that study, I don't believe that it should be interpreted as "only young children think it's not ok to break the law" but rather "older children are more likely to question the law". Also, at the age of 12 when they were asked for a second time, can they really give a valid opinion on the law anyway? I don't honestly think that your study shows anything at all with regards to if thinking it's not ok to break the law is juvenile. It doesn't cover enough age ranges.

    I personally don't think it's ok to break the law because, like it or not, if you're caught you're gonna get screwed over. That doesn't mean I agree with the law at times - I just know that breaking it isn't a good idea. Not to say that I've never broken it at all, either; a conversation with Mr Cat Dog a while back on this topic revealed to me that I should have been imprisoned for life several times over by now! But to me it wouldn't be ok to break it unless there were no consequences and no-one would bat an eyelid, which isn't how it works. Sometimes, as in Andy's example, it can seem necessary to break it I guess but there are usually ways around that. I might come back to some of the specifics NarutoActor outlined in the OP a bit later.
     
    Well, as touched on before, technically it's never "ok" to break any law, since they're laws. The point of them is that's it okay to do this and not okay to do that (no matter how bad the laws or the enforcers might be).

    That said, there are still times where some people accept breaking certain laws; there are crimes that are easy to commit and/or don't appear to have any actual consequences, like illegal file sharing for example. While for some it's incredibly convenient, it's still usually not perceived as "ok". Even though no one is actually losing anything, you'd still be taking something for free that you are supposed to pay for.
    The thing that most don't seem to realize about file sharing however, is that sharing, downloading, uploading copyrighted images and such is breaking copyright laws. And since everyone does it, on facebook, YouTube, and not least these forums with our signatures and whatnot, without any noticeable consequences, that is in many cases considered okay by a huge number of people.

    I'll leave the internet topic though, since the laws regarding that are in no way developed enough as of now.

    The human compassion and survival instinct will in most cases weigh more than the will to follow the law. After all, when we have to make really hard and possibly life-changing decisions we follow our gut more often than logic. Even if a child would see things in black and white, because of course breaking the law is bad, it hasn't been taught otherwise, if it was to decide whether to break the law or die, of course it would choose the one resulting in its survival. It comes down to our instinct.

    We also have cases like the government being really obviously bad, and triggering an uprising. The rebels would certainly be better off (in most cases) if they just abided to the laws and did nothing to change the situation than they are during a revolution, breaking the law and risking everything for the purpose of doing what's "right".
    This particular example I think is the closest I can get to saying it's okay, because it shows how relative laws can be. While in this terrible country certain things are against the law, on other places people (and governments) would support their actions. For everyone except for the supporters of the corrupt government, this would be necessary, and if the revolution happens and the laws get changed, it could justify their actons and make them "ok".






    TL;DR: cookies are delicious.
     
    Yes, of course. I feel that you should do what's right, and if that happens to coincide with the law, then great. Hopefully that's how it is most of the time, but if not, then doing good is more important than following the law.
     
    Last edited:
    Laws should exist to help people and keep people from harm. Laws shouldn't get in the way of rights or doing what is right. Laws that do this are not okay so I'd say it's permissible to break them.

    For instance, in some parts of the world a woman must cover their whole bodies because it's the law. This is one of those laws that is not okay and no one should have to follow it unless they want to. (There are practical reasons - like not getting killed by mobs - where one would want to follow a bad law, but it's still a bad law.)

    The example of stealing medicine is a good one, I think, because it illustrates how the laws surrounding who gets the medicine are bad since they keep what is needed from the people who need it. And when I say "need" I mean that in the proper sense of actual needs like basic survival (food, shelter, sanitation, medicine, etc.). So stealing in that situation is okay because unless there are some very funky circumstances a person who is sick and needs medicine should get it. Good laws would make sure they do. Laws that don't fall short of the purpose of law.
     
    I feel that laws should be in place to prevent harm, not inhibit people. If something will help the greater welfare of a group of human beings, it should be done, whether legal or not. An example I can bring up is in my state, a homeless woman was arrested for sending her daughter to a public school and falsifying the documents to say she lived at a residence in town. She did this to allow her daughter to get an education, which is something that everyone in the world can agree is important in someone's life. She didn't have money to buy a house, let alone send her daughter to private school, which would have been her only option since the law states you have to have a legal residence in the town you are sending your child to public school to stay in that public school.

    I guess there really isn't equal opportunity for everyone and you have to break the law and not get caught to get the essential building blocks.
     
    if it doesn't help anyone (or restricts them from any rights) and if it's none of your business (like gay marriage and abortion) then it shouldn't be a law.

    But if it doesn't fall into those two categories then go ahead and make them.
     
    my views have pretty much already been stated so I'll just say it in brief: if the magnitude of the situation requires it, then it is completely ok to break laws
     
    Law is something quite unflexible. Life and society moves and morphs. While the morphing is slow, it way of moving is really fast, sometimes giving you two choices, before you notice it: breaking the law or letting something 'bad' happen, like the sick wife a couple of posts ago. Law can not adapt to be fair at that moment, as it is really fast and often disappears shortly after. Not brushing your teeth is an example of appering-and-disappearing situation.
    So, for me, sometimes it becomes a situation pretty tricky, and sometimes, no matter what you do, you break the law, but you break different ones, and get different consequences.
    Messing with the sick wife topic, by law, you shouldn't steal it, no matter how necessary it is. But...are really the drug producers doing their business right?
    Do we have to be ethic and fair if the producer wasn't?
    BUT! If no matter if answered Y/N, you are highly unlikely to steal it directly to the producers, and you are likely to steal it from a random pharmacy, causing damage to someone without asking, advising...just damaging that cog in the machine to get your object.
     
    Pretor54 said:
    Law is something quite unflexible. Life and society moves and morphs. While the morphing is slow, it way of moving is really fast, sometimes giving you two choices, before you notice it: breaking the law or letting something 'bad' happen, like the sick wife a couple of posts ago. Law can not adapt to be fair at that moment, as it is really fast and often disappears shortly after. Not brushing your teeth is an example of appering-and-disappearing situation.
    So, for me, sometimes it becomes a situation pretty tricky, and sometimes, no matter what you do, you break the law, but you break different ones, and get different consequences.
    Messing with the sick wife topic, by law, you shouldn't steal it, no matter how necessary it is. But...are really the drug producers doing their business right?
    Do we have to be ethic and fair if the producer wasn't?
    BUT! If no matter if answered Y/N, you are highly unlikely to steal it directly to the producers, and you are likely to steal it from a random pharmacy, causing damage to someone without asking, advising...just damaging that cog in the machine to get your object.
    Click to expand...

    If I had to chose between breaking the law to save somebody or let them die, I'd break the law gladly then. We have a provision into the Constitution that allows for the disobedience and removal of unjust laws.
     
    Depends. There are a lot of circumstances where you can "justify" breaking the law, but even then that depends on who you ask or who it is that is judging whether it is justified or not.

    Something might be justified in your eyes, but it's bound to be unjustified depending on who you ask.

    Laws are in place to prevent people from committing certain acts that are deemed negative, bad, that should be discouraged. Usually it's unjustifiable no matter what the case because, in my opinion, criminal offenses are regarded by most as... an offense. No matter what reason you break the law for, you will still be breaking a law, and that in itself is unjustifiable. Whether something is justifiable or not, there is bound to be at least one person that has a different opinion from the masses. If you were to ask if it were justifiable based off of everybody's opinion, you couldn't get a straight answer, it would have to be vague to not disregard others' opinions.

    The answer? Yes, no, and maybe. It can be justifiable in your eyes, as long as, well, you believe it is justified or justifiable. No, if you were to get a definite answer from the general public, there would always be someone that differs. Maybe, if there is some loophole in which you might commit the crime... As a whole, nothing can be fully justified. It can only be justified to some, or many, but not all.
     
    Livewire said:


    If I had to chose between breaking the law to save somebody or let them die, I'd break the law gladly then. We have a provision into the Constitution that allows for the disobedience and removal of unjust laws.
    Click to expand...

    And to add to this, many times someone will do something that doesn't align with federal or state law. Or perhaps someone will do something that is protected by the law. Either way, the judicial branch has the responsibility of interpreting the intent of the law, and thereby can amend or declare part or the entirety of a law to be unconstitutional and a person who acts illegally, can be innocent/non-liable and a person who act legally can be declared guilty/liable. It's these real-life situations that help us see if a law is effective or destructive, and maintain justice. (Although this process is not fool-proof)
     
    The reason laws are made is to keep order.
    The reason people follow them is because of the consequence. (Fear)
    If the law causes fear then break the law, it is unjust.
    If the consequence is bearable to you, you can break the law.
    If the consequence is unknown, you may choose to break the law.
    If the law is unknown to you, then it doesn't matter.
    If the enforcer of the law is unjust, break the law.
    If the consequence and law is unjust, get many to break the law (this is how America was founded)
    Following laws doesn't judge morality, breaking a law doesn't judge morality. Laws are good because most of them are moral and helps people conform to a more moral code (don't murder, steal, or rape are very basic ones. Don't copyright, plagiarize, or slander are a little more complex)
     
    Status
    Not open for further replies.
    Back
    Top