Better to be illegal or immoral?

[albionmoonlight]

I certainly don't want to get into the music swapping right/wrong debate--though this is what gave me the idea for these simple questions--which apply to much more than the music swapping debate.

Personally, do you consider it less wrong to do something that is illegal or something that you consider to be immoral?

Would you rather live in a world where most people did things that are illegal or a world where most people did things that they consider to be immoral?

Couple notes: Of course, some actions that are illegal tend to be immoral and vice versa. And many actions are neither. This question gets to those actions that are legal but not moral or moral but not legal. In addition, assume for purposes of this question that people who are acting "morally" are being honest with themselves and others (i.e. people are not doing things that they know are immoral and pretending that they believe that they are right.) Finally, you can see from the way that I phrased the question that I have made illegality objective and morality subjective. You can answer the question on those terms (which in my mind leads to the most interesting debate) or challenge those debatable starting points. I would, however, ask you to keep those critical distinctions in mind.

[BigJohn&TheLions]

If you illegally download a song that is immoral, is it wrong?

[Blackadar]

Much of morality is relative...

[Raiders Army]

I'd have to pick immortal.

[TheOhioStateUniversity]

Downloading a song is not immoral in my opinion but it is illegal. Personally there are many "laws" that have nothing to do with morality in my opinion such as jaywalking obviously. Anyway I think a good society needs a mix of people following the laws and some sense of morals, I can not say I would prefer one over the other. I dont really care if someone does something that is illegal as long as it isnt also immoral. Most things tend to be tied together though.

[rkmsuf]

it makes you amphibeous

[MJ4H]

Well I would say it is better to follow the legal guidelines over your personal moral guidelines in most cases for the simple reason that a lot of people may not understand why a thing is illegal and then think its ok to do since it's not immoral in their mind.

Also, some of the good of being in a civilzation (rather than out on our own) is that we sacrifice some things for the good of the community. Just trying to maximize personal liberty is not the idea way to go about things in a civilized society. One should not place one's rights over one's duties, in other words. Therefore, the way I see it is that one should not just do something because they want to and it isn't immoral to do it in their minds. Most of the time, a law is there for a reason whether we understand or AGREE with it (and remember if you don't agree with it, this may be one of those sacrifices for the community that you go along with it anyway). The reason still exists and we elect people to help make informed decisions (more informed than we are in a lot of respects) about these things. Yeah, they aren't always right, but we've got to try to go along with the plan we're utilizing.

Bah, rambling. I try to keep these thoughts to myself most of the time.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by Blackadar

Much of morality is relative...

I agree, for the most part.

So if you were confronted with a clear law that you considered to be immoral--you can't serve black people at your lunch counter--would you break the law?

If so, would you consider it OK if someone illegally injured you based on an honestly held moral belief--they blow up your SUV because of the harm that they beleive it causes to the environment?

Does it matter if you are hurting other people directly with your choice--if instead of serving a black person at your lunch counter, you try to intimidate and harass other lunch counter owners into doing the same thing?

Does it matter how "crazy" the honestly held belief is? Do we give more leeway to people's morality if it is based on mainstream Judeo-Christian or Islamic principles instead of radical Morman or Scientoligist principles (again, assuming that the beliefs in question are honestly held)?

Should the law give a little when people break it for the "right" reasons vs. breaking it for the "wrong" reasons.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I was almost stumped at first, stuck with an answer of "both are wrong".

But then another read, combined with your latest post, gave me some better questions to answer.

Would you rather live in a world where most people did things that are illegal or a world where most people did things that they consider to be immoral?

The latter, since I have more faith in the average law than I do in the average person's sense of morality. The key to answering there being that it was the individual morality that was guiding behaviors.

Should the law give a little when people break it for the "right" reasons vs. breaking it for the "wrong" reasons.

Absolutely not. Such a process renders those "laws" little more than "suggestions".

Between those two specific items, hopefully you can divine whatever answer I'd have to the original broad question & tally me accordingly.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The key to answering there being that it was the individual morality that was guiding behaviors.

That's the key to me, too. I think a lot of people might think that if they were a guard at a Nazi prison camp, that they would have helped Jewish prisoners escape--and that such action was "right." They might, however, not like it if a guard at the local state prison beleived that the war on drugs was immoral and racist and helped cell block D escape into their neighborhood. In other words, most people seem to be OK with breaking laws that they beleive are immoral, but don't want others (at least others with a vastly different sense of morality) to do the same.

To me, there is no easy answer to the question. In short, I think that the law needs to be the same for all men. If helping people escape from the concentration camp is important enough to you, then you need to deal with the legal consequences of your actions.

I also beleive that, in general, people need to follow the law--for the same reasons that we have a social contract in the first place. There are exceptions to this general proposition in my mind, but if and when I ever engage in those exceptions (breaking laws that I consider to be particularly unjust), I also expect that society will punish me when/if I am caught.

I cannot, however, devise any more cogent rationale for when it is OK to break a law that you consider to be immoral than the old saw "I know it when I see it."

[QuikSand]

There's an interesting first-person/third-person debate to be had here.

Personally, I trust my own judgment more than I do society's (and certainly than our government's) so I'll stick with my own morals over the law as the better guide.

However, it might well be tempting for someone, like JIMGa above, to invert this for purposes of society at large -- essentially saying that we don't trust other people to make their own such decisions, and therefore we prefer society's laws to indivisually-cast morals for guidance.

[MJ4H]

But the danger there is then people find themselves wanting to do something, so they "justify" it to themselves and then think it isn't immoral. Like "yeah but the record companies are all so rich and the artists don't get enough of the money anyway." I have seen this SO many times it is simply unbelieveable. So, no, I don't trust the general public to make correct moral decisions. I believe justification is to easy a way out for most people to ignore.

[Raiders Army]

It's funny that most people don't trust the general public or our government's rationale to make good laws.

As was stated earlier, laws and morals are closely intertwined. Laws are largely the result of morals that become the norm. Why are anabolic steriods illegal? Why is pot illegal? Those are both areas where morals have become the norm.

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

There's an interesting first-person/third-person debate to be had here.

Personally, I trust my own judgment more than I do society's (and certainly than our government's) so I'll stick with my own morals over the law as the better guide.

However, it might well be tempting for someone, like JIMGa above, to invert this for purposes of society at large -- essentially saying that we don't trust other people to make their own such decisions, and therefore we prefer society's laws to indivisually-cast morals for guidance.

Let's say that your daughter Katie was dating a guy named Tom who is in a cult. Your honestly held moral belief indicates that the cult is harming her and that it is worth breaking some laws to get her out of the cult. You decide to break into Tom's house (illegal), push him down (illegal), and grab Katie and remove her from the house against her will (illegal). You may beleive, however, that it was worth breaking the laws in order to keep Katie from being brainwashed.

Now, let's say that Tom has an honestly held moral belief that psychology is a fraud and that people on anti-depressants are being enslaved by the evil pharmacutical companies. So he breaks into his neighbor's house (illegal) and replaces his neighbor's anti-depressants with placebos (illegal). He beleives that it was worth breaking the law in order to help his neighbor out of the clutches of the medical mafia.

You may beleive that you are right and Tom is wrong. Personally, I do beleive that you are right and Tom is wrong on those facts above. It is hard, of course, for me to come to terms with calling one person right and another person wrong without saying that my morality is better than theirs. And I actually have very little problem with that. Isn't the fact that I have my morality and not their's evidence of the fact that I beleive that mine is better? Aren't honestly held moral beliefs, almost by definition, what you think is right? I have no problem with calling certain moral beliefs wrong and others right.

So the question then becomes, should the fact that I think that you are right and Tom is wrong have any practial effect on how society treats you? There I think that my answer has to be no. MattJones4Heisman explains this pretty well. The law is part of the social contract to which we are all obligated. I don't know if there is much room for subjective viewpoints within that contract.

The second question--do I want to live in a world where Tom is going to try to break into my house and steal my medicine (assuming he thwarts the attempts to law enforcement to stop him, is undeterred by the threat of criminal punishment, etc.)? If not, then I want him to ignore his morality and leave me alone. So should I then do the same for him? Saying that I am right and he is wrong is one thing. Saying that only people who share my sense of morality should act upon that morality and everyone else should ignore their morality is something else. It's a pretty heady statement. I beleive that I am right. Does that mean that I am the only person who should do illegal things that I consider to be right?

Also--you can think of variations on this theme that do not involve directly attacking others, but I am tired of typing.

[judicial clerk]

Generally speaking, not following the law of the land that you find yourself in is immoral. If you do not agree with the laws, then you should use the appropriate channels to change the laws.

Also, our legal system is flexible and tries to take into account "unique circumstances" and "close calls". Police officers have discretion as to who they arrest and/or cite for breaking the law. Prosecutors have discretion as to who they prosecute for breaking the law, and judges have discretion to make findings of law and fact and determine sentences for breaking the law.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

IThe latter, since I have more faith in the average law than I do in the average person's sense of morality.

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Generally speaking, not following the law of the land that you find yourself in is immoral. If you do not agree with the laws, then you should use the appropriate channels to change the laws.

I gave it some thought and came up with these reasons, more or less, for choosing law over morals. Thanks for saving me the time of typing it out.

[Logan]

This thread is giving me a headache.

[QuikSand]

I think your questions and scenarios above, albion, serve to illustrate the HUGE gulf between the content of these two statements that you placed side by side in your setup.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Personally, do you consider it less wrong to do something that is illegal or something that you consider to be immoral?

Would you rather live in a world where most people did things that are illegal or a world where most people did things that they consider to be immoral?

If it was your intent for these two to be essentially restatements of one another, then I think you have erred irretreivably.

My point with my answer above is that I, personally, judge my own actions more harshly if they contradict my moral code than I would if they contradict a societal law. That has absolutely no bearing on whether I judge society to be better off if there are no societal standards whatsoever.

I am perfectly comfortable saying that yes there should be laws that govern society, but that to me, my own moral guidance counts even more.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Personally, I trust my own judgment more than I do society's (and certainly than our government's) so I'll stick with my own morals over the law as the better guide.

When I say this above, I am not arguing that there is no role for societal laws at all, nor that contradicting them is of no consequence. That seems to be the assertion some are refuting, and I don't think I nor anyone else has made it.

You asked for a ranking. I put me first, society second. It's an honest answer, but not an all-or-nothing.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Generally speaking, not following the law of the land that you find yourself in is immoral. If you do not agree with the laws, then you should use the appropriate channels to change the laws.

Should your morals change with every supreme court decision?

Is abortion morally ok now.
But in a couple of years, if roe vs. wade is overturned, it is wrong?

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Surtt

Should your morals change with every supreme court decision?

Is aborion morally ok now.
But in a couple of years, if roe vs. wade is overturned, it is wrong?

It doesn't have anything to do with the substance of the law. Whatever the law is now, on whatever subject, it is immoral to break it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I put me first, society second. It's an honest answer, but not an all-or-nothing.

Which is, essentially, what I did on the initial question ('both are wrong")

For the clarity of others, the snippet of mine quoted later was from a different sub-question (about which world would you rather live in).

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

For the clarity of others, the snippet of mine quoted later was from a different sub-question (about which world would you rather live in).

And that's the question I was answering as well. To me, morality is subsumed by the law, making it a non-choice, really, because breaking the law is immoral, IMO.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

And that's the question I was answering as well. To me, morality is subsumed by the law, making it a non-choice, really, because breaking the law is immoral, IMO.

And you therefore are rejecting, in substantial part, the premise of the question. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but it puts your answer on a different plane, I think, than someone who would agree with the original posit that the two (morality and law) have unique elements in both cases.

[Surtt]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

It doesn't have anything to do with the substance of the law. Whatever the law is now, or whatever subject, it is immoral to break it.

The Nuremberg defense, I was just following orders.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

And you therefore are rejecting, in substantial part, the premise of the question. Nothing wrong with that, necessarily, but it puts your answer on a different plane, I think, than someone who would agree with the original posit that the two (morality and law) have unique elements in both cases.

Well, that's what happens when I skim a post and choose to read the middle paragraph/sentence. I didn't even realize there were two questions.

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Surtt

The Nuremberg defense, I was just following orders.

Absolutely not. I didn't say I had to agree with a law, just that I had to respect it. That doesn't mean I can't pursue legal means to change a law.

For example, since you brought up abortion, I would think that maybe it would be preferable to lend support to cases that might go before the SC, in hopes that it would be overturned, rather than going around shooting abortion doctors.

[Huckleberry]

Generally speaking, not following the law of the land that you find yourself in is immoral. If you do not agree with the laws, then you should use the appropriate channels to change the laws.

Occasionally the only appropriate and effective channel is to break the law.

I question the sanity of anyone that will call what Rosa Parks did immoral.

[QuikSand]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Generally speaking, not following the law of the land that you find yourself in is immoral. If you do not agree with the laws, then you should use the appropriate channels to change the laws.

And as long as you use the caveat "generally speaking," it's hard to quibble with this. Most laws are just and sound, and breaking them is immoral to most sensible people.

The real debate here enters where thst isn't the case. Some here would argue that there is no exception to this rule -- that any law passed by any society creates a moral burden on that society's members. It's not an invalid argument... just one that we're not all willing to embrace.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Occasionally the only appropriate and effective channel is to break the law.

I question the sanity of anyone that will call what Rosa Parks did immoral.

Jon in middle GA would have put her behind bars for 20 years. (Only a joke)

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by panerd

Jon in middle GA would have put her behind bars for 20 years. (Only a joke)

{shrug} Off-hand, I dunno what the appropriate sentence was for breaking the law as it appeared on the books.
(i.e., I don't know what the range of sentences were)

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by Huckleberry

Occasionally the only appropriate and effective channel is to break the law.

I question the sanity of anyone that will call what Rosa Parks did immoral.

I don't find it to be all that incongruous to see that law should come first, but recognizing that, under certain circumstances, breaking a law may be the only alternative. On the whole, I would always choose law over morals. But on a case-by-case basis, I can certainly understand where it wouldn't be wise for that to be a hard-and-fast rule. But the same can be said for choosing morals over law, too. I think in either case, that goes without saying. But if I had to choose one to be applied always, I'd have to choose law.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Personally, do you consider it less wrong to do something that is illegal or something that you consider to be immoral?

Immoral actions are worse than illegal ones, IMO. Law is society's statements on morality (although the emphasis on efficiency and social utility is becoming more prominent) so for personal decisions, I value my own morality more.

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Would you rather live in a world where most people did things that are illegal or a world where most people did things that they consider to be immoral?

That question depends entirely on context to me. In Nazi Germany, I would prefer a society to be acting morally rather than legally. In the U.S. today, it would be fair to say that "most people [do] things that are illegal" albeit for petty crimes and violations (ie speeding). I don't think I could give any general answer to this question because some societies are built on crappy laws and some socieites have crappy morality.

None of this is to say I'm opposed to the Rule of Law (that is hard for a lawyer to be), but I do believe, as MLK Jr and Thoreau did, that unjust laws should not be adhered to. That doesn't render the system a series of "suggestions" as JiMGA suggests, because there are limits to when violation is acceptable (as both MLK Jr and Thoreau said). However, a society built on immoral laws must be opposed through legal and illegal action, IMO.

[Surtt]

Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made.
Otto von Bismarck

[judicial clerk]

And as long as you use the caveat "generally speaking," it's hard to quibble with this.

Occasionally the only appropriate and effective channel is to break the law.

I question the sanity of anyone that will call what Rosa Parks did immoral.

Good points of course. I would like to carve out an exception to the illegal conduct=immoral conduct idea and say that non-violent civil disobedience may be illegal but not immoral. Of course, once we start carving out exceptions we are back in the same dilemma: everybody thinks there illegal behavior is as moral as Rosa Parks' behavior. I guess I would ask Rosa to move to the back of the bus and then try to change the unfair laws in her city/state/country through the election process or the legislative process or the legal process. I admit that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by judicial clerk

Good points of course. I would like to carve out an exception to the illegal conduct=immoral conduct idea and say that non-violent civil disobedience may be illegal but not immoral. Of course, once we start carving out exceptions we are back in the same dilemma: everybody thinks there illegal behavior is as moral as Rosa Parks' behavior. I guess I would ask Rosa to move to the back of the bus and then try to change the unfair laws in her city/state/country through the election process or the legislative process or the legal process. I admit that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

There are limits to when breaking the law is morally permissible, but I think the issue cuts the other way as well.

While the Rosa Parks example is a good one, imagine a more extreme case. If Nazi Germany had a law that requires you to report Jews known to be hiding. If the SS comes to your door and demands to know where the Jews are hiding (and you do know), would you tell them? Kantians would say "yes." Strict adherents to authoritarian principles (like Hobbes) would say "yes." I think the rest of us would like to think we would say "no."

A just legal system allows flexibility and isn't as rigid as people would imagine. I believe courts in particular are a good check and balance for the enforcement of unjust laws. The U.S. government works well because of these checks and balances and slavish adherence to laws goes against (and not for) the values embodied in the Constitution, IMO.

[Chas in Cinti]

Did anyone else think this thread would be about young girls in and out of Kentucky?

-Chas

[albionmoonlight]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I think your questions and scenarios above, albion, serve to illustrate the HUGE gulf between the content of these two statements that you placed side by side in your setup.



If it was your intent for these two to be essentially restatements of one another, then I think you have erred irretreivably.

My point with my answer above is that I, personally, judge my own actions more harshly if they contradict my moral code than I would if they contradict a societal law. That has absolutely no bearing on whether I judge society to be better off if there are no societal standards whatsoever.

I am perfectly comfortable saying that yes there should be laws that govern society, but that to me, my own moral guidance counts even more.

I was not trying to make them restatements of one another. I was trying to set up two distinct questions. Ideally, I wanted people to think to themselves "I would choose my personal morality over the law" for the first question and "It is a worse world when people choose their personal morality over the law" for the second. That then leads to the point--you think that something is the better answer for you (choosing your own moral code over the law). However, you think that the world would be better if people did not do that. You are then left to examine how that can be. Should individuals make the "wrong" choice for them (picking law over morality)? Is it that your personal moral code is simply better than everyone elses, so that they should follow the law, but you should follow your moral code?

Those are the questions that I find the most interesting.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by albionmoonlight

Is it that your personal moral code is simply better than everyone elses, so that they should follow the law, but you should follow your moral code? Those are the questions that I find the most interesting.

Earlier in this thread, you said something that closely resembles one of the very first things I can ever remember causing me great frustration on the internet; something so seemingly obvious to me and yet utterly bewildering to many around me that it about drove me (and countless others) insane trying to find a way to get them to understand something I believe should be about as plain as "water is wet."

Isn't the fact that I have my morality and not their's evidence of the fact that I beleive that mine is better? Aren't honestly held moral beliefs, almost by definition, what you think is right? I have no problem with calling certain moral beliefs wrong and others right.

In effect, "if I didn't believe I was right, then I wouldn't believe this way. And why on earth would someone willingly believe something they thought was wrong in the first place."

Basically, you already the answer to your latest question, and actually seem to be relatively understanding of how that answer is derived.