Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[Cyclone]

You need to grasp the concept that if people break the law, they HAVE done wrong.

 

Does that mean that in particularly repressive Sharia law countries women have actually done wrong if they are the victim of assault, or even just spend time with a non family member male? Has someone who drinks in dubai committed a moral outrage?

How can what is morally right change by simply stepping over a border?

 

Laws aren't handed down by some higher authority with the power to say what is moral and what is immoral, they're made by men and they can be flawed, or just wrong.

[Murphy Jnr]

 

Laws aren't handed down by some higher authority with the power to say what is moral and what is immoral, they're made by men and they can be flawed, or just wrong.

 

I don't know that Laws can be wrong, they may not fit in with a particular lifestyle but in the main they are the correct way to go on and as the intention for most is to protect then i have to say that they are right. However, it's sensible to suppose (as onewheeldave pointed out) that at some point it may be necessary to break a law for the better for example, to drive a car without a licence in order to get someone to a hospital. If that is the definition then smoking canabis is not a necessary example.

[harvey19]

?

Immoral things were done (by the state).

 

That state created laws- many of those laws were morally wrong.

 

As are the UK drug laws.

Have you read Out of It by Stuart Walton.

I have only just started reading it and the introduction is thought provoking when read in a totally objective and unbiased way.

[Cyclone]

I don't know that Laws can be wrong, they may not fit in with a particular lifestyle but in the main they are the correct way to go on and as the intention for most is to protect then i have to say that they are right.

So laws can never be wrong in your opinion.

You realise that the Nazi party passed laws making it legal for them to commit genocide?

However, it's sensible to suppose (as onewheeldave pointed out) that at some point it may be necessary to break a law for the better for example, to drive a car without a licence in order to get someone to a hospital. If that is the definition then smoking canabis is not a necessary example.

The point being made is that just because something is 'the law' it doesn't follow that behaving that way is morally correct.

'The law' is created by people and can be created immorally, or just mistakenly.

[Murphy Jnr]

No that's not what i'm saying and as is customary with this forum you've chosen an extreme as an example to make a point. I can't class a law as being wrong if it is there to protect but i can appreciate that there will be times when it serves to 'break' a law if circumstances dictate.

[Chris_Sleeps]

I can't class a law as being wrong if it is there to protect

I can. If the law is only to protect people from themselves, then I believe that people should have the liberty to make such decisions themselves without a state interfering. What I eat, what I drink, who I choose to have sex with, how I choose to spend my free time, who/when/how/why I choose to worship; if these have nothing to do with anybody else, if they harm nobody else directly, then they should be not be illegal.

[harvey19]

I can. If the law is only to protect people from themselves, then I believe that people should have the liberty to make such decisions themselves without a state interfering. What I eat, what I drink, who I choose to have sex with, how I choose to spend my free time, who/when/how/why I choose to worship; if these have nothing to do with anybody else, if they harm nobody else directly, then they should be not be illegal.

You could apply that to the seat belt laws.

I think certain laws are passed to protect the vulnerable members of society and in so doing affect all members of society.

[Chris_Sleeps]

You could apply that to the seat belt laws.

It is possible to interpret the idea that way, I agree.

 

Seatbelt laws could affect someone else though, which is where the harm principle comes into play. Not wearing a seat belt could turn a minor accident into a fatality, which would harm other road users and emergency services. It could turn a 'bump' into someone saying "I killed a man today", and thus it should be the law that everyone protects themselves while driving a car.

[onewheeldave]

No that's not what i'm saying and as is customary with this forum you've chosen an extreme as an example to make a point. I can't class a law as being wrong if it is there to protect but i can appreciate that there will be times when it serves to 'break' a law if circumstances dictate.

 

Good.

 

The current UK drug laws cause far more harm than good. For that reason, I have no problem with people breaking those laws. What we really need though, is for those laws to be scrapped.

[onewheeldave]

It is possible to interpret the idea that way, I agree.

 

Seatbelt laws could affect someone else though, which is where the harm principle comes into play. Not wearing a seat belt could turn a minor accident into a fatality, which would harm other road users and emergency services. It could turn a 'bump' into someone saying "I killed a man today", and thus it should be the law that everyone protects themselves while driving a car.

 

Plus, of course, the seat belt laws work- in the main people do use the seat belt and, in the main, are happy to do so (as they realise it could save their life, while being of little inconvenience).

 

In sharp contrast, the UK drug laws blatently do not work- a considerable portion of the population continue to use drugs.

 

And, unlike seat belt laws, the UK drug laws do not decrease harm- they increase it.