Perspective On Morality And Breaking The Law

303 Words1 Page

Starting with perspective one I would like to point out the key points. Laws are there to provide peace and avoid chaos, although we should follow the laws if there are things that people may disagree with. Instead of just keeping quiet they should have the right to speak out about it without necessarily breaking the law. Breaking the law wont make it change but discussion of why the law is unjust and why the law was put in place in the first place is bound to make more progress than breaking the law to prove a point. Perspective two, I don't completely agree with the statement that people have a moral obligation to break laws that are unjust, unfair, or immoral. I would more say the entirety of perspective two will get you no where but in trouble and in jail or in legal trouble with the law. …show more content…

Listening to criminals is less likely. Perspective three, out of the three perspectives presented to me this is the perspective I agree with the most. Breaking the law is not the way to go, and as it states in this perspective breaking the law often comes at a greater personal cost. I agree that you would be morally impacted by breaking the law instead of being a responsible adult individual and speaking out in a respectful

Show More
Related

  • The Moral Ambivalence Of Crime In An Unjust Society Summary

    568 Words  | 2 Pages

    In “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman he offers a detailed explanation of many different ways to define justice and allows the reader to fully comprehend the meaning of it. Before he even began explaining justice he gave his own experience with crime as way to convey to the reader how his rights had been violated and he had been filled with anger at the criminals instead of the justice that failed him. This first hand encounter with crime allowed Reiman to prove to readers that justice is what is what protects us and it is the criminals who are the problem. To see that even a man who had thought and written about nothing but crime for thirty-five years could still become

    Read More

  • Antigone Unjust Analysis

    739 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is largely understood that laws are put in place for the good of the communities which they govern. Laws are meant to reflect the wishes of the people and the general consensus is that as a result, these laws should be followed without question. In reality this is not always the case. There are often laws worth questioning whether it be for convenience, personal gain, or deep personal or moral reasons. A historical connection to the latter would be the protection of Jews from the Nazis during WWII and the Holocaust. Hitler created a document outlining a death penalty for any and all persons who were caught aiding Jews in any way, small or large. Despite this law being enforced with dire consequences for infraction, there were still

    Read More

  • Being Morally Justified in Disobeying Laws We Consider to be Immoral

    629 Words  | 2 Pages

    I believe that we can be morally justified in disobeying laws, which we consider to be immoral and there are several reasons for this. I believe that it is only possible to happily live in accordance with our own moral code, it may also be possible to live without too much dissatisfaction within the bounds of laws, which dictate a stricter moral code than our own. However I do not believe that it is possible to happily exist under a system of law whereby we are obliged at times to break our own code of morality. In this situation we are likely to find ourselves in a constant struggle ...

    Read More

  • Euthyphro's Theory Of Piety

    820 Words  | 2 Pages

    If people were to always follow the laws, there would no prisons nor crimes. People would be good citizens. There would not even be chaos and the society can maintain peace.

    Read More

  • Victim's Rights: Why Do Laws Protect the Criminal More than the Victim?

    2532 Words  | 6 Pages

    It is very interesting to see that even though when someone breaks the law in the United States, they will still be protected by that very law. Even as one violates the rights of others, the law will make sure that their rights are protected. It almost seems that has more rights by breaking the law instead of following it. Police are prevented from using extreme force against them and lawyers are at the ready to serve these criminals. Criminals have forfeited their rights when they have violated the rights of others. Why should the law be so intent on protecting their rights, when they have no intent on following the law?

    Read More

  • Promoting the Use of Civil Disobedience

    657 Words  | 2 Pages

    According to St. Augustine “an unjust law is not a law at all”(p186). This belief has been shared by many influential leaders in the past, including Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. They all believed in a non-violent approach to solving their social grievances. In most cases their approach was successful and was noticed by society and brought about a change in the laws. This nonviolent perspective stems straight from Jesus, who says, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”(p192). Others believe that by being disobedient you are under minding the laws and thus creating chaos within society. But, if unjust laws are not brought into light or under minded, then there will be no change in those laws. Martin Luther King felt there is a misconception of time in that the very flow of time cures all ills. On the contrary, time is neutral and it can be used either destructively or constructively(p190).

    Read More

  • Breaking the Law or Civil Desobedience

    1627 Words  | 4 Pages

    History has spoken. The words of the weak started it. Their actions proved it. Disobeying a law is a crime that the offender should be willing to take the punishment for and let his sacrifice be used as a point to rally around to create a just, moral change. Whenever a law is deemed unjust, there is good reason for breaking it to achieve justice. Civil Disobedience will never be legal and those who employ it should be willing to accept the penalty that comes with breaking a law. It has been shown through historic cases, modern examples, and the core values of a democratic society that show Civil Disobedience not only works, but should be used as a tool to demonstrate the moral objectives that are being sought. Considering some laws are unjust and in contradiction with the core beliefs of society, there are certain times when breaking a law is reasonable, but it is by no means encouraged and should be done at the law breakers own risk.

    Read More

  • Immorality as Humans

    686 Words  | 2 Pages

    Evil is constantly talked about on the news, in history class, and by people in society. But who causes this evil that society is so intrigued by? Author William Golding’s idea of evil in “the darkness of man’s heart” is present in his novel, Lord of the Flies, and in the present world.

    Read More

  • A Free Society Must Expect Civil Disobedience

    1773 Words  | 4 Pages

    Singer gives two typical arguments in favor of obeying these unjust laws. I will address these arguments one at a time. The first argument says that, "By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war." (Singer, 297)

    Read More

  • Morality And Morality Analysis

    867 Words  | 2 Pages

    Immanuel Kant addresses a question often asked in political theory: the relationship between practical political behavior and morality -- how people do behave in politics and how they ought to behave. Observers of political action recognize that political action is often a morally questionable business. Yet many of us, whether involved heavily in political action or not, have a sense that political behavior could and should be better than this. In Appendix 1 of Perpetual Peace, Kant explicates that conflict does not exist between politics and morality, because politics is an application of morality. Objectively, he argues that morality and politics are reconcilable. In this essay, I will argue two potential problems with Kant’s position on the compatibility of moral and politics: his denial of moral importance in emotion and particular situations when an action seems both politically legitimate and yet almost immoral; if by ‘politics’, regarded as a set of principles of political prudence, and ‘morals’, as a system of laws that bind us unconditionally.

    Read More

  • Civil Disobedience

    1100 Words  | 3 Pages

    I think there are always times when disobeying a law is morally justified. "They are sometimes unfair and repressive; common sense, social custom, and religion already provide enough guidance; and morality can never be legislated" (Kessler 154). Thoreau argued that any given law is not as high or not above what you believe in or what your conscious tells you is right. "We all have a moral duty to obey our consciences" (Kessler 154). I believe it is very clear how I stand on the subject of civil disobedience. After researching this topic and formulating my own opinions I have learned a great deal about my morals and myself. It simply shocks me when I think of the accomplishments of people like King, Gandhi, and Thoreau.

    Read More

  • Civil Disobedience: Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, And Henry David Thoreau

    990 Words  | 2 Pages

    Laws are sometimes weird and silly, people break laws all the time while they don’t even realize it. In Alabama it is illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time. Considering this, it is right to disobey the law when one’s conscience dictates him or her to do so as demonstrated by Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, and Henry David Thoreau. These historical men used the idea of unity, freedom, and peace to explain their messages across.

    Read More

  • Declining Morality: A Societal Examination

    1080 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Decreased moral standards and ethics related to ignorance to accepted social behavior standards”. Morality is defined as an understanding and distinguishing right and wrong and behaving according to socially accepted standards (The Definition of Morality, 2002). People can be inconsiderate and conflictful. From the assessment, it was evident that some people have lack of respect to other’s personal properties and even their own. Abandoned houses and trash on properties suggest social and moral degradations. Some of the contributing factors might be poverty, unemployment, and mental illnesses. Lack of morality might be a problem that affects other states and even countries. However, in some areas of Spokane, it is evident that people

    Read More

  • The Issue Of Disobeying The Law

    1283 Words  | 3 Pages

    A controversial issue regarding the law has been whether it is ever right to disobey the law. Some people would argue that it is not always morally wrong to disobey the law. From this perspective, laws that are considered immoral or unfair hinder society through unnecessary restrictions. However, others argue that it is never right to disobey the law. Socrates, who maintains this view, discusses the issue of obeying laws in Crito by Plato, arguing that a citizen “[has] undertaken, in deed if not in word, to live [their] life as a citizen in obedience to us [the Laws]” (271). According to this view, obeying the law is a citizen’s duty, and a person who is not obedient to the law fails to fulfill his duty. In sum, the issue is whether disobedience of the law is moral or immoral.

    Read More

  • Law And Morality Essay

    811 Words  | 2 Pages

    Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.

    Read More

More about Perspective On Morality And Breaking The Law

Open Document