Civil disobedience

[Prince_Imrahil]

When or should we be allowed to not follow certain laws if we reason that they are 'unjust?' Say guns are banned in the US, are we morally allowed to not abide and to what extant?

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Even if such a law was unjust, I get the feeling that the law wouldn't "allow" us to disobey. Now, if you're talking about what's moral, that's a whole new can o' worms.

 

[Prince_Imrahil]

Yup, moral!

that's my interest.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

ahh.. a typical jurisprudence question. Gotta love em'. For the US and in Common Law, the "law" of the legislation is generally expected to be obeyed except when the law is..

incredibly stupid or 'universally' immoral
or
based on "past truths"
or
unconstitutional/ contrary to related statutes
and
sometimes unjust

If the law is none of those, then a person should obey what the law says always. To add to all of this, if hypothetically Congress banned guns in the US and people protested, they'd legally have no leg to stand on.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

I think I misread the question. You're asking even if the law is expected to be enforced, when should we morally disobey in spite of punishments? I guess when we feel we're being unfairly and greatly deprived of something and then it's only a matter of not getting caught.

 

[Elrohir]

When or should we be allowed to not follow certain laws if we reason that they are 'unjust?' Say guns are banned in the US, are we morally allowed to not abide and to what extant?

If the right being infringed is so serious that you're willing to accept the punishment for exercising it, then sure. But if you're going to whine about how you're being punished for doing something illegal, then don't. Even if you have the moral right to break the law, that doesn't mean the government won't punish you for breaking it anyway. Know what you're getting into.

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

I only follow laws I believe in (which is more or less all of them).

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

It is my philosophy that it is morally acceptable to break unjust laws (i.e. when breaking the law harms no other person) but if a person does this that person should also work to legally change the laws so that they are just.

 

[Atlas14]

When or should we be allowed to not follow certain laws if we reason that they are 'unjust?' Say guns are banned in the US, are we morally allowed to not abide and to what extant?

Whenever. A logical, practical reason must be provided though. If you believe strongly in something, yet fail to take action (even if by means of civil disobedience), then you aren't doing all that you possibly can. Laws are laws, morality rises above the law in my opinion.

 

[silver 2039]

I agree. As long as you are prepared to deal with the consequences go ahead. If your not prepared to deal with the consequcnes then it won't work.

 

[Brighteye]

Depends on how the society you're in is based. In a properly founded society you should never disobey the laws unless obeying them will cause you harm or death; laws and society are there for our benefit, and if they do not serve this purpose then both can be discarded.
As things currently stand, laws have no moral force, and are simply impositions of a more powerful entity on us. Therefore it is simply a question of whether you think that you will be caught.

 

[ComradeDavo]

Morales are relative.

 

[Leonel]

Civil disobedience is still disobedience.

 

[LucyDuke]

I agree. As long as you are prepared to deal with the consequences go ahead. If your not prepared to deal with the consequcnes then it won't work.

QFT. If you disagree with the law, disregard it. But keep in mind that it's not going to get you a get out of jail free card.