Should I be jailed for breaking the law?

[Rupert_Baehr]

Some laws are immoral and unjust.

 

And? Some are Amoral, too (you missed that one.)

 

As I said. Law has nothing to do with morality and/or justice.

[Cyclone]

The law has nothing whatsoever to do with morality or justice. The law is the law.

 

You couldn't be more wrong IMO.

[onewheeldave]

That's as maybe, but it's still a good example of a law that's wrong and immoral.

 

It's an example of a religious belief (or fanaticism)

 

Yes. But, nevertheless, it is a law.

 

The link-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/8793145/Saudi-woman-to-be-lashed-for-driving-car.html

 

was posted in response to someone claiming that laws, by definition, were right and that breaking laws was always wrong.

 

But, laws are created by states, and, are often wrong.

 

This particular one is the creation of the saudi state.

 

It may well be based on religious belief, but the fact remains that it is a law.

 

All laws are based on something- religious belief, political belief, belief that it will protect the population etc, etc.

 

There's no mileage in argueing that all laws are right and then, when shown laws that are clearly wrong, saying that 'ah... but those particular laws are based on.....'

 

Fact is that any exceptions whatsoever indicates that not all laws are right.

[Murphy Jnr]

Yes. But, nevertheless, it is a law.

 

The link-

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/saudiarabia/8793145/Saudi-woman-to-be-lashed-for-driving-car.html

 

was posted in response to someone claiming that laws, by definition, were right and that breaking laws was always wrong.

 

But, laws are created by states, and, are often wrong.

 

This particular one is the creation of the saudi state.

 

It may well be based on religious belief, but the fact remains that it is a law.

 

All laws are based on something- religious belief, political belief, belief that it will protect the population etc, etc.

 

There's no mileage in argueing that all laws are right and then, when shown laws that are clearly wrong, saying that 'ah... but those particular laws are based on.....'

 

Fact is that any exceptions whatsoever indicates that not all laws are right.

 

I still disagree and argue that the law(s) by themselves cannot be either, the punishment may well be unjust.

[onewheeldave]

I still disagree and argue that the law(s) by themselves cannot be either, the punishment may well be unjust.

 

So in the case of the saudi women being lashed, you agree that the penalty is unjust (you call it 'punishment' but, given that the woman have done nothing wrong, I'm not sure punishment is the best word).

 

But, essentially, even though you don't want the say the law can be wrong, you seem to accept that the penalties can be wrong (or unjust, as you put it).

 

Putting things like that, the equivalent for UK drugs laws would be that the penalties for using cannabis are unjust- I think most cannabis users would agree there.

[Murphy Jnr]

So in the case of the saudi women being lashed, you agree that the penalty is unjust (you call it 'punishment' but, given that the woman have done nothing wrong, I'm not sure punishment is the best word).

 

But, essentially, even though you don't want the say the law can be wrong, you seem to accept that the penalties can be wrong (or unjust, as you put it).

 

Putting things like that, the equivalent for UK drugs laws would be that the penalties for using cannabis are unjust- I think most cannabis users would agree there.

 

 

If women are not allowed to drive then she has indeed done something wrong (god i'm turning into Cyclone)

My argument has been that the law is neither right or wrong. The penalty can be harsh, severe etc etc

[onewheeldave]

If women are not allowed to drive then she has indeed done something wrong (god i'm turning into Cyclone)

My argument has been that the law is neither right or wrong. The penalty can be harsh, severe etc etc

 

On what possible grounds can it be wrong for a woman to drive??

 

How can it possibly be right for a law to decree that a person can't drive on the grounds that they are a woman?

 

Why are you arguing that such a law can be anything but wrong?

 

would you similarly argue that the German laws in the 1930's forbidding jews to walk on the pavement were not wrong? Or Laws in South africa forbidding a person from entering a rest room or cinema, on the grounds that they are black?

[Murphy Jnr]

On what possible grounds can it be wrong for a woman to drive??

 

How can it possibly be right for a law to decree that a person can't drive on the grounds that they are a woman?

 

?

 

I have no idea it's a ridiculous Law but as I said it's likely more to do with religion than anything else.

 

As stated earlier, the Black South African/Asian/Mixed Breed segregation was an extension of 'Policies' dating back hundreds of years. The Laws that came later served to strengthen those Policies as well as add to them.

[onewheeldave]

I have no idea it's a ridiculous Law but as I said it's likely more to do with religion than anything else.

 

As stated earlier, the Black South African/Asian/Mixed Breed segregation was an extension of 'Policies' dating back hundreds of years. The Laws that came later served to strengthen those Policies as well as add to them.

 

Well, as you can accept that laws can be 'ridiculous', then presumably you can accept that the UK drug laws could similarly be ridiculous.

 

I think most cannabis users (and also many non-cannabis users) would happily go along with the view that Uk drug laws are ridiculous.

[Murphy Jnr]

Well, as you can accept that laws can be 'ridiculous', then presumably you can accept that the UK drug laws could similarly be ridiculous.

 

I think most cannabis users (and also many non-cannabis users) would happily go along with the view that Uk drug laws are ridiculous.

 

The canabis thing is of no consequence to me, it's smoked regardless of it's status in the Law