If you had to choose between what you believe was right and what was the law, which would you choose?

[Hayabusa Rider]

I saw a comment in another thread that got me thinking about this. Some say that beliefs are irrevelent and the law must be followed, otherwise you have anarchy. If you follow this reasoning, then we never should have broken away from the British, and everyone in Nazi Germany should have agreed with Hitler. I think people generally choose their beliefs over law. They may choose to obey it, but in the end it because think that a particular law should be followed.

Whatcha think?

 

[CPA]

While I think the comment you refer to may have been made by me, I should have qualified it.

I do definitely think that there are plenty of dumb laws out there. I also definitely believe, where possible and within common sense, the concept of "jury nullification" should be used.

But, the fact that there are dumb laws on the books, does not give someone the right to haphazardly break the dumb laws. Nor should a law be allowed to be followed "when necessary". If people don't like the law it can be changed. But to just stand up and say "I'm not going to push my beliefs on someone else", when in fact that "belief" is a law, is assinine. It's a law! Don't like it, change it!

 

[Mr.IncrediblyBored]

I guess it depends on a number of factors.

How strongly do I feel against this law?
What reprocussions will I face if choose to disobey this law?
Am I prepared to face them?

I'm sorry I missed the original discussion that spawned this thought of yours, Hayabusa. Though, and feel free to correct me, the comparison between the Germans during WWII and whatever law you guys were talking about is likely highly exgaggerated and probably not valid. Call it a hunch.

Help Hitler massacre millions of people, or stand against him?
Cross the street, even though the sign says I should wait, or should I cross on my own?

 

[FrontlineWarrior]

i would do what is right, but expect to be punished under the law.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

CPA, it was indeed your response that sparked this thread, and I understand what you meant in context. This is a more general question though, based on watching people here, on TV and in "real life". I witness all sorts of feelings and statements that often have no sense as I understand the use of the word.

KnightBreed,
Yep I made an exaggerated statement merely for illustration, nevertheless the principle stands at least in the context of how the thread topic is framed. There are times I find a law inconvient, but I follow it because I decide the point behind that law outweighs my desire to skirt it.

Something more trivial-
You are following a construction vehicle moving slowlyyyyyyyyy. Now there is a double yellow line. You cannot cross to pass even though you can see ahead. Now assuming there is no explicit permission to pass under these circumstances, do you

A. Pass it and thereby break the law

or

B Stay behind it no matter how long you have to stay there doing 15?


Now the question here could be, which is the right thing to do?

Other, better examples abound I am sure.

 

[Jugernot]

It depends... laws are formed when a group of people make a decision. Either the people vote or elected representatives vote. Obviously not every law is agreeable to every person, but there is a line where majority rules.

Personally I don't think you should have to place your hand on a bible before you can testify in a court of law, but my vote will never count, as I'm the minority. I'm also against "Under god" being in the pledge of allegiance.

Some things are worth standing up for your principals, some aren?t.