Why do people always say it's "Wrong" to break the law?

[imported_Tick]

Many people have this idea that because something is against the law, it is also wrong. This doesn't make sense. Something might be wrong, and something might be against that law, and something might be both, but just because something is wrong doesn't make it against the law, and just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves. Some things most people agree are wrong, and some things most people agree are right. But the fact is their is a lot of personal varience over what is wrong, and over how wrong it is. The law is a seperate matter all together. The law is thier to protect the citizens and to keep society coheisive (sp?). These ideas may be inter-related, but they are not inextricably (sp?) linked. Theirfore, to all the people trumpiting that downloading illegal media is wrong, stuff it. It is against the law, true. And you may think it's wrong, fine. But being against the law does not make it wrong! And further, the person doing it may not see it as wrong. So stop telling them they are doing something wrong! And further, SOMETIMES THE LAW IS WRONG!

/Weak Rant

Note: I have a spelling disabbility, and I'm just slightly drunk, just so you know.

 

[Shadow Conception]

Kinda like gay marriage. In some places, against the law, but not wrong.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: Shadow Conception
Kinda like gay marriage. In some places, against the law, but not wrong.

Nice example.

 

[johnjohn320]

While I agree that law does not necessarily = moral right vs wrong in all cases, you do have to acknowledge that that's at least the PURPOSE of law. Laws are supposed to be definitions of right versus wrong. Now, that doesn't mean they can't be challenged. But that is their intention.

 

[DainBramaged]

Some religions say that you must obey "mans laws." That's probably where the concept comes from.

 

[Neurorelay]

Ethics and morals, basically is what you are pointing out.

Ethics are what society deems correct; morals are your own personal viewpoints.

And yes, there is no such thing as right and wrong, just different points of view.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
While I agree that law does not necessarily = moral right vs wrong in all cases, you do have to acknowledge that that's at least the PURPOSE of law. Laws are supposed to be definitions of right versus wrong. Now, that doesn't mean they can't be challenged. But that is their intention.

No, the purpose of law is not to regulate right vs. wrong. Then it would be called enforced morality. The purpose of law is to provide safety and to keep society together. If law was to regulate morality, why isn't cheating on your girlfriend against the law, when most people concider that wrong?

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: DainBramaged
Some religions say that you must obey "mans laws." That's probably where the concept comes from.

Just because you must obey them does not make it wrong not too, it just makes it a violation of religious law...

 

[compuwiz1]

Smoking a blunt is against the law too, but wrong? Some would say it is not wrong.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: compuwiz1
Smoking a blunt is against the law too, but wrong? Some would say it is not wrong.

Another good point.

 

[compuwiz1]

And, here's another one.
In Virginia, it is against the law for a husband and wife to have oral sex. That's definately NOT wrong.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Tick
Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves.

I disagree...it is true that certain parts of morality are cultural and individual, but I believe there's also a universal morality.

 

[SophalotJack]

I wasn't around when 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of laws were made.

So I say, "if you get away, you didn't break the law."

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Tick
Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves.

I disagree...it is true that certain parts of morality are cultural and individual, but I believe there's also a universal morality.

BULLSHIT!!!! Thier is no such bloody thing. Think about all the circumstances of justified killing. Killing, the most serious crime you can commit, is justified under certain exact circumstances. Yet, those circumstance vary from person to person and place to place. How, then, can morality be universal, when we can't even agree on when it's ok to kill someone?

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: SophalotJack
I wasn't around when 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of laws were made.

So I say, "if you get away, you didn't break the law."

And many people would agree, and many would disagree. Therefore, breaking the law IS NOT WRONG.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Tick
Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves.

I disagree...it is true that certain parts of morality are cultural and individual, but I believe there's also a universal morality.

BULLSHIT!!!! Thier is no such bloody thing. Think about all the circumstances of justified killing. Killing, the most serious crime you can commit, is justified under certain exact circumstances. Yet, those circumstance vary from person to person and place to place. How, then, can morality be universal, when we can't even agree on when it's ok to kill someone?

Language is arbitrary. Therefore, laws are arbitrary. Still, I choose to abide by them. But you are completely correct in your asumptions.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
While I agree that law does not necessarily = moral right vs wrong in all cases, you do have to acknowledge that that's at least the PURPOSE of law. Laws are supposed to be definitions of right versus wrong. Now, that doesn't mean they can't be challenged. But that is their intention.

I disagree partially. I think whatever laws are 'supposed' to be, they have generally become the imposition of the will of the powerful over that of the weaker. Slavery, for instance, became the law not because it was the will of the people, nor was it considered morally right initially...instead it was the will of the wealthy land owners (predominately southern). Laws are a tool of the rich and powerful, and the bane of the common man. For the most part. Justice and law are seldom related.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Tick
Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves.

I disagree...it is true that certain parts of morality are cultural and individual, but I believe there's also a universal morality.

BULLSHIT!!!! Thier is no such bloody thing. Think about all the circumstances of justified killing. Killing, the most serious crime you can commit, is justified under certain exact circumstances. Yet, those circumstance vary from person to person and place to place. How, then, can morality be universal, when we can't even agree on when it's ok to kill someone?

Language is arbitrary. Therefore, laws are arbitrary. Still, I choose to abide by them. But you are completely correct in your asumptions.

I tend to think so. It's not that I'm saying that everyone should got out and break the law. In fact, I tend to be very law abiding. But not because it's wrong to break the law, but because I believe in laws, to an extent.

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands

Originally posted by: johnjohn320
While I agree that law does not necessarily = moral right vs wrong in all cases, you do have to acknowledge that that's at least the PURPOSE of law. Laws are supposed to be definitions of right versus wrong. Now, that doesn't mean they can't be challenged. But that is their intention.

I disagree partially. I think whatever laws are 'supposed' to be, they have generally become the imposition of the will of the powerful over that of the weaker. Slavery, for instance, became the law not because it was the will of the people, nor was it considered morally right initially...instead it was the will of the wealthy land owners (predominately southern). Laws are a tool of the rich and powerful, and the bane of the common man. For the most part. Justice and law are seldom related.

I do agree, to an extent. I identify myself as an Anarcho-Capatilist, and a Libertarian. That does not mean I think that laws are evil. Nor are the always a tool of oppression. But laws do not govern morality. When we think they do, tyrany insues. But we need laws. It's just that laws don't trump more own sense of morality. If I think a law is wrong, I'm not going to abide by it and let it stand the way it is just because it's the law. Some times, the law is wrong.

 

[habib89]

i personally think it's morally wrong to violate laws.. so for me it is wrong to break the law.. and i have a feeling a lot of people feel the same..

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: habib89
i personally think it's morally wrong to violate laws.. so for me it is wrong to break the law.. and i have a feeling a lot of people feel the same..

But WHY?

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Tick
Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves.

I disagree...it is true that certain parts of morality are cultural and individual, but I believe there's also a universal morality.

BULLSHIT!!!! Thier is no such bloody thing. Think about all the circumstances of justified killing. Killing, the most serious crime you can commit, is justified under certain exact circumstances. Yet, those circumstance vary from person to person and place to place. How, then, can morality be universal, when we can't even agree on when it's ok to kill someone?

I said that there was such a thing as universal morality, but where did I say that it is achieved by democratic concensus? :roll:

Lots of people disagree on what happened on 9/11, too. Does that mean that there is not ONE exact way that it happened, just remembered differently or spun differently by the various people involved?

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Tick

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: Tick
Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves.

I disagree...it is true that certain parts of morality are cultural and individual, but I believe there's also a universal morality.

BULLSHIT!!!! Thier is no such bloody thing. Think about all the circumstances of justified killing. Killing, the most serious crime you can commit, is justified under certain exact circumstances. Yet, those circumstance vary from person to person and place to place. How, then, can morality be universal, when we can't even agree on when it's ok to kill someone?

I said that there was such a thing as universal morality, but where did I say that it is achieved by democratic concensus? :roll:

Lots of people disagree on what happened on 9/11, too. Does that mean that there is not ONE exact way that it happened, just remembered differently or spun differently by the various people involved?

Ok, but even if laws were achieved by moral consensus, how would that make it wrong to break them?

 

[chuckywang]

Originally posted by: Tick
Many people have this idea that because something is against the law, it is also wrong. This doesn't make sense. Something might be wrong, and something might be against that law, and something might be both, but just because something is wrong doesn't make it against the law, and just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves. Some things most people agree are wrong, and some things most people agree are right. But the fact is their is a lot of personal varience over what is wrong, and over how wrong it is. The law is a seperate matter all together. The law is thier to protect the citizens and to keep society coheisive (sp?). These ideas may be inter-related, but they are not inextricably (sp?) linked. Theirfore, to all the people trumpiting that downloading illegal media is wrong, stuff it. It is against the law, true. And you may think it's wrong, fine. But being against the law does not make it wrong! And further, the person doing it may not see it as wrong. So stop telling them they are doing something wrong! And further, SOMETIMES THE LAW IS WRONG!

/Weak Rant

Note: I have a spelling disabbility, and I'm just slightly drunk, just so you know.

You might be interested in philosophy. This is precisely the difference between a moral absolutist (breaking the law is always wrong) and a moral relativist (sometimes breaking the law is alright).

 

[imported_Tick]

Originally posted by: chuckywang

Originally posted by: Tick
Many people have this idea that because something is against the law, it is also wrong. This doesn't make sense. Something might be wrong, and something might be against that law, and something might be both, but just because something is wrong doesn't make it against the law, and just because something is against the law doesn't make it wrong. Wrong and right are a personal thing that each person sets for themselves. Some things most people agree are wrong, and some things most people agree are right. But the fact is their is a lot of personal varience over what is wrong, and over how wrong it is. The law is a seperate matter all together. The law is thier to protect the citizens and to keep society coheisive (sp?). These ideas may be inter-related, but they are not inextricably (sp?) linked. Theirfore, to all the people trumpiting that downloading illegal media is wrong, stuff it. It is against the law, true. And you may think it's wrong, fine. But being against the law does not make it wrong! And further, the person doing it may not see it as wrong. So stop telling them they are doing something wrong! And further, SOMETIMES THE LAW IS WRONG!

/Weak Rant

Note: I have a spelling disabbility, and I'm just slightly drunk, just so you know.

You might be interested in philosophy. This is precisely the difference between a moral absolutist (breaking the law is always wrong) and a moral relativist (sometimes breaking the law is alright).

I don't like philosophy because it attempt to make a science out of people thought, opinions, moral values, and ways of thinking. I don't like philosophy because it tries to reduce the most complicated thing in our lives, other people, down to simple terms and generalities and idea clusters. I don't like philosophy because it tries to make thinking, that glorious and wonderful and amazing thing, into something to be studied. I don't like philosophie because it takes away my individuality of mind and makes me a thought machine. I don't like philosophy because it makes me less me.