>...whose pregnancy would put their life in danger, but the doctor practices in a state that outlaws abortion...
He doesn't need to break the law. This is legal in all 50 states. Point in fact, law is loosely fit to the morals of the society in which you find yourself. I'll go a step further and point out that you have no way of ever proving that the morals you carry as an individual weren't gifted to you by that same society. Research suggests that they very much were. This is important in some of my other answers.
> Are there any instances where you would agree that breaking the law is the right thing to do?
In court, I trust that in the majority of cases, if someone acts in a way that the majority find to be in alignment with the values of the society that tries them, if that society matches the one in which they align as well, that they will be found innocent, implying that they didn't break the law. This satisfies your MLK examples, and all the others too.
By the way, if you read the above paragraph carefully, you'll find that it is not my opinion, but a logical construct of fact. If we assume that democracy works, its purpose is to create laws that match the majority direction of the moral compass of the people. Therefore, your actions in court are compared against the very morals which you are assumed to expect of yourself. That's also why someone found to have broken the law is referred to as "guilty." In a more archaic definition, guilt is an emotion. The court is finding the accused to have known that they were doing wrong and to feel bad about it.
In other, more pointed words, to have been possessed of the duty to break the agreed upon code of conduct of the morals shared by the accused and their peers. I used the word "duty" here intentionally to point out how logically impossible it would be to consider it moral.
>Was it moral in 1950 to discriminate based on race and sex...
It wasn't, that's why this ended not long after. But I see what you're asking so let me revise your question. 1920: the majority would tell you that it's the nature of humanity and that it's not immoral.
You and I don't agree with that, but we aren't a product of the 20s. If you think you would be an exception, then I'd call you egotistical. That would be statistically very improbable. Your morals are every bit a product of your peers' morals as ChatGPT is a product of the internet.
>Unarmed protesters certainly can break laws! You don't need a weapon to block off a highway, break into a building, or deface a wall with graffiti.
In doing any of those things, they've ceased to be protesters. They are now rioters. Rioting is illegal. And it does warrant a violent response.
>..then why do you suggest that they're likely to shoot?
What kind of person chooses a violent job? A violent person. Violence is not corruption. In fact it's perfectly justified in some cases.
This goes both ways. If you know you're going to interact with violent police when you go sit on the highway, you're also looking for violence. There's nothing peaceful about it.
Let's look even closer; blocking a highway prevents emergency transportation causing loss of life. It's not just beyond protesting, it's beyond rioting. You're out there killing people. I wouldn't think it's a stretch to pin manslaughter and in some cases even murder or serial murder on them.
Preventative, even violent action, is justified here. Notice the law says so too.
And especially if the protesters didn't know that, it makes the point that they can't be trusted to protect the wellbeing of society more than the law and should therefore never be advised to believe it's their "duty" to trust their own judgement of morality over the law. In this example, they've committed a moral atrocity as a protest! They need to be told that they can't trust themselves, and that they are a danger to society.
Was Ghandi a danger to his fellow man? Was MLK? Look how easy it is for them to imagine that they are each as enlightened as MLK when in fact, they've become murderous criminals.
Please, just don't break the law. Don't get shot. Use your brain!
>their belief is that morality does not stem from majority opinion; it stems from the word of God.
Sure but the church will tell them what that is and will ensure that every member knows it. That's a shared morality. It's also malleable over time, just like the legal system.
>it tells me that the law is unjust when it comes to punishing police officers who commit crimes.
It seems society cuts them some slack since they are, after all, removing protesters from the highway so that their grandma can get to the hospital, or their kid doesn't bleed to death in the ambulance.
Herein, the morality of the individual, the protester, led them to kill my grandma, or my neighbor's son. Now they for sure don't appear to be responsible enough to trust their morals. Intentionally or accidentally, it doesn't matter. The outcome is that they've killed people because they thought they know better than the laws that took millions of people thousands of years to create, and they'll do it all while believing themselves to be a peaceful protester that has a duty to break unjust laws.
Just like every villain in history.
>..there are also many laws that are unjust, and they won't change without societal pressure.
Then you should be patient or resign to humbly accept that you may be wrong and that they won't and maybe shouldn't change, otherwise you might do something stupid like sit on the highway, inciting cops to become violent, end up in prison, my grandma will die on the way to the hospital, and you'll plead in court that you didn't mean to kill her, you were making a statement.
Seriously, don't do something selfish like that. Maybe you're really ahead of the moral curve, but in the experience of many millions of people who share the world with you or those who lived before you, we find that to be a very unlikely assessment.
>Breaking the law is a good way to make headlines and spread awareness.
No it's a good way to kill people. See the examples above. You've just lowered your moral standing to less than the law. I don't see how you can come back from that.
You seemed like a nice person, and at the very least asked good questions, but you lost my respect when you said this.
> its more difficult in the US to change laws than in some other democracies, even if the majority agree the law should be changed.
You give credit to the law every time you break it and someone dies. That's exactly why it's so hard to change. You're causing the problem and then complaining about it?
The columns are getting too narrow to continue. I wish you well, and I hope you'll change your mind about breaking the law, and if you won't, that you'll be jailed safely.
> I'll go a step further and point out that you have no way of ever proving that the morals you carry as an individual weren't gifted to you by that same society.
Oh sure, I won't deny I'm influenced by the society around me, but my morality can't be entirely a product of that society, otherwise I wouldn't find any laws to be unjust.
> You and I don't agree with that, but we aren't a product of the 20s. If you think you would be an exception, then I'd call you egotistical.
But I was in minority when it came to gay rights in the 1990s, and I'm in the current minority when it comes to trans rights in the 2020s.
Why do you assume that I wouldn't also be in the minority regarding civil rights, were I born earlier? I'm not saying I'd be in the 1%, but I'd like to think I'd at least be in the 40%.
I guess I should at least applaud the honesty of someone who implies they would be supporting the Klan or worse if they were born a century earlier, but I think your mistake is assuming everyone is like you.
> In doing any of those things, they've ceased to be protesters. They are now rioters. Rioting is illegal. And it does warrant a violent response.
I would consider that to be extremely immoral. All this time we've been talking about how violence should be a last resort, and now suddenly it isn't?
> Let's look even closer; blocking a highway prevents emergency transportation causing loss of life.
The emergency vehicles would use the shoulder to pass the traffic, and the protestors could just move out the way when an emergency vehicle came. I'm not saying you don't have a point that lives could be endangered, but it's a leap to say that people would certainly die, even in this hypothetical example of yours.
And what about graffiti? How would that endanger life?
> No it's a good way to kill people. See the examples above. You've just lowered your moral standing to less than the law. I don't see how you can come back from that.
So all non-violent civil disobedience is immoral, because you were able to think of an example of how a specific act of civil disobedience could be the cause of a death.
Fine. Let's use the same logic on laws.
The second amendment guarantees every American a right to bear arms, but this includes Americans who are irresponsible. An irresponsible gun owner might leave their firearm where a child could find it, leading to the death of that child.
Voilà: a example of how a specific law could cause a death, which by your logic means all laws must be immoral.
> The columns are getting too narrow to continue. I wish you well, and I hope you'll change your mind about breaking the law, or that you'll at least wind up in jail before you get someone killed.
Thanks for the discussion. I can assure you that I have no current plans to break the law, but if a dream team of professional criminals recruits me for an ambitious and improbable casino heist, you understand that I can't make any guarantees.
He doesn't need to break the law. This is legal in all 50 states. Point in fact, law is loosely fit to the morals of the society in which you find yourself. I'll go a step further and point out that you have no way of ever proving that the morals you carry as an individual weren't gifted to you by that same society. Research suggests that they very much were. This is important in some of my other answers.
> Are there any instances where you would agree that breaking the law is the right thing to do?
In court, I trust that in the majority of cases, if someone acts in a way that the majority find to be in alignment with the values of the society that tries them, if that society matches the one in which they align as well, that they will be found innocent, implying that they didn't break the law. This satisfies your MLK examples, and all the others too.
By the way, if you read the above paragraph carefully, you'll find that it is not my opinion, but a logical construct of fact. If we assume that democracy works, its purpose is to create laws that match the majority direction of the moral compass of the people. Therefore, your actions in court are compared against the very morals which you are assumed to expect of yourself. That's also why someone found to have broken the law is referred to as "guilty." In a more archaic definition, guilt is an emotion. The court is finding the accused to have known that they were doing wrong and to feel bad about it.
In other, more pointed words, to have been possessed of the duty to break the agreed upon code of conduct of the morals shared by the accused and their peers. I used the word "duty" here intentionally to point out how logically impossible it would be to consider it moral.
>Was it moral in 1950 to discriminate based on race and sex...
It wasn't, that's why this ended not long after. But I see what you're asking so let me revise your question. 1920: the majority would tell you that it's the nature of humanity and that it's not immoral.
You and I don't agree with that, but we aren't a product of the 20s. If you think you would be an exception, then I'd call you egotistical. That would be statistically very improbable. Your morals are every bit a product of your peers' morals as ChatGPT is a product of the internet.
>Unarmed protesters certainly can break laws! You don't need a weapon to block off a highway, break into a building, or deface a wall with graffiti.
In doing any of those things, they've ceased to be protesters. They are now rioters. Rioting is illegal. And it does warrant a violent response.
>..then why do you suggest that they're likely to shoot?
What kind of person chooses a violent job? A violent person. Violence is not corruption. In fact it's perfectly justified in some cases.
This goes both ways. If you know you're going to interact with violent police when you go sit on the highway, you're also looking for violence. There's nothing peaceful about it.
Let's look even closer; blocking a highway prevents emergency transportation causing loss of life. It's not just beyond protesting, it's beyond rioting. You're out there killing people. I wouldn't think it's a stretch to pin manslaughter and in some cases even murder or serial murder on them.
Preventative, even violent action, is justified here. Notice the law says so too.
And especially if the protesters didn't know that, it makes the point that they can't be trusted to protect the wellbeing of society more than the law and should therefore never be advised to believe it's their "duty" to trust their own judgement of morality over the law. In this example, they've committed a moral atrocity as a protest! They need to be told that they can't trust themselves, and that they are a danger to society.
Was Ghandi a danger to his fellow man? Was MLK? Look how easy it is for them to imagine that they are each as enlightened as MLK when in fact, they've become murderous criminals.
Please, just don't break the law. Don't get shot. Use your brain!
>their belief is that morality does not stem from majority opinion; it stems from the word of God.
Sure but the church will tell them what that is and will ensure that every member knows it. That's a shared morality. It's also malleable over time, just like the legal system.
>it tells me that the law is unjust when it comes to punishing police officers who commit crimes.
It seems society cuts them some slack since they are, after all, removing protesters from the highway so that their grandma can get to the hospital, or their kid doesn't bleed to death in the ambulance.
Herein, the morality of the individual, the protester, led them to kill my grandma, or my neighbor's son. Now they for sure don't appear to be responsible enough to trust their morals. Intentionally or accidentally, it doesn't matter. The outcome is that they've killed people because they thought they know better than the laws that took millions of people thousands of years to create, and they'll do it all while believing themselves to be a peaceful protester that has a duty to break unjust laws.
Just like every villain in history.
>..there are also many laws that are unjust, and they won't change without societal pressure.
Then you should be patient or resign to humbly accept that you may be wrong and that they won't and maybe shouldn't change, otherwise you might do something stupid like sit on the highway, inciting cops to become violent, end up in prison, my grandma will die on the way to the hospital, and you'll plead in court that you didn't mean to kill her, you were making a statement.
Seriously, don't do something selfish like that. Maybe you're really ahead of the moral curve, but in the experience of many millions of people who share the world with you or those who lived before you, we find that to be a very unlikely assessment.
>Breaking the law is a good way to make headlines and spread awareness.
No it's a good way to kill people. See the examples above. You've just lowered your moral standing to less than the law. I don't see how you can come back from that.
You seemed like a nice person, and at the very least asked good questions, but you lost my respect when you said this.
> its more difficult in the US to change laws than in some other democracies, even if the majority agree the law should be changed.
You give credit to the law every time you break it and someone dies. That's exactly why it's so hard to change. You're causing the problem and then complaining about it?
The columns are getting too narrow to continue. I wish you well, and I hope you'll change your mind about breaking the law, and if you won't, that you'll be jailed safely.