If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Obeying the law...
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do we have an obligation to obey the law?
This may seem self evident to people, but I've been forced to think about it and have come to the realization that most people just assume that there is such an obligation. But does it really exist? If you question your underlying assumptions, do you still think there is an obligation to obey the law?
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between a moral obligation to obey the law and a legal obligation to obey the law?
This may seem self evident to people, but I've been forced to think about it and have come to the realization that most people just assume that there is such an obligation. But does it really exist? If you question your underlying assumptions, do you still think there is an obligation to obey the law?
Is there, or should there be, a distinction between a moral obligation to obey the law and a legal obligation to obey the law?
0
Comments
I think there is an obligation for all of us to obey the law. Just think of it as a football game that all footballers got to obey the rules. If not then they are out. As long as we wish to stay in this country then we should obey this country's law.
In theory the function of law is to protect the country's citizens' rights. So law should be viewed as something protective of ourselves rather than something to restrict us.
On the other hand if, say for instance, a dictator comes to power and makes some unreasonable law, then its citizens have the right to refuse to obey the law. This is in politics terms called civil disobedience. In history there are people who have done that. Gandi (sp) in India for example openly disobeied British laws when India was still under British.
Ultimately there is no 'obligation' to follow laws. They have been invented over the years as the consensus opinion on what is right and what is wrong gradually develop into fixed rules of what can and cannot be done.
Laws are formulated by our representatives in Parliament, so theoretically we actually have a say in law-making....
But, there are also going to be disagreements on certain issues, and hence some laws are more controversial than others e.g. classification of cannabis, murder.
Does that sort of answer the question?
Does this mean that our moral obligations override the obligation to obey the law, or do they negate it?
Should there be a distinction between an obligation to obey a just law and an obligation to obey an unjust law?
Kentish--Laws are meant to be based on morals, but what is generally accepted as right is not necessarily so. Slavery in America for example.
Theoretically we do have a say in law-making, but what if a law goes against the common good? (back to the slavery example) Or runs over the rights of a minority group? Surely they deserve the law's protection as well?
There was no law allowing slavery, just no law banning it - subtle difference.
And when it was eventually banned in the 19th century, the law was pioneered by Christian campaigners - hence the law was based on Christian ethics/morals. Therefore the law does have a moral basis.
Good point, but thats not what the problem of law is. It is the weakness of democracy - the minority obeys the majority. The only way to get round this is to set up some watchdog associations to monitor the fairness of laws.
You're right. Segregation would have been a better example.
So the law is based on morals and ethics. But what about a totalitarian state? There are prudential reasons to obey the law--if you don't want to be punished for example. But is there an obligation to obey the law because it is the law?
How about Hitler's Germany? The morality of those laws were questioned by many, hence the war. So what does that say about law, that particular state, or the law in general?
Yes, laws change, but they change for different reasons. Sometimes because of protests or changing values. Do you believe they are ever evolving into a state of "perfection" (using that term loosely, of course, because it is unattainable, but are we coming ever closer)? Does that, therefore, create an obligation to obey the law?
If a certain activity is thought of as deviant to enough people, it will be made illegal.
Hence homo-sexuality being illegal for many hundreds of years, whilst other acts, have only recently become deviant, such as drug taking.
Most laws however were created to protect the property of the land owners, back in the 1300's, which is where most of our laws date from. Laws were designed to protect those with property and wealth, and to prevent them from losing their wealth, with the exception of common law, such as murder, rape, assault e.t.c.
As more people have become wealthy, more people have come under the protection of the law.
Law is based on the opinions of the people. If the majority of people want a certain act to be made legal, cannabis for example then the government has an obligation to make sure it is made legal, one of the primary functions of a democracy is to see this happen. If in 10 years time, the majority of people see cannabis use as deviant, then it will be banned.
The same applies to other laws, with the exception of common laws and crimes against the state, which are for the benefit of everyone.
Dont forget the laws were accepted by the majority and therefore they were passed. I think we still need to obey laws. Just to imagine if people can choose to obey laws or not totally upon what they think are right. There would be loads of chaos and disorders.
If you dont like the law of a country, you can either leave the country go somewhere else, or if there are enough people agree with you, you can overthrow the government.
Personally I see our obligation being to test the laws in existence, and occasionally 'fracture' them.
Many of our advances today have been made on the backs of laws breakers - such as the sufragettes. Then, of course, there are other direct actions, with events such as the Poll Tax riots which have a huge effect of public opinion, or can actually be representative of public opinion.
If we allow the laws to dictate our actions completely them we allow Politicians to subjugate us.
But dont forget the politicians are elected by their voters which are us. We, in effect, accepts them to make laws on behalf of our own. Politicians are actually our agents. Following this logic, so we are not obeying something we agree with?
There are plenty of reasons to obey the law, but if they can be outweighed by other things, are they necessarily obligations? Is this only a useless linguistic distinction? What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of reasons why people obey law.
You don't commit murder because the law says you can't; you don't commit murder because your conscience tells you not to. In this case, your morals are in line with the law, so you are obeying the law not because it is the law, but because you happen to agree with it. So the more moral and just a legal system is, the less instances of disagreement there are. Or so the argument goes.
Also, there are laws which we break and expect to pay for it. Parking infractions, for example. We sometimes know that if we park somewhere we will get a ticket but we park there anyway. So, we are breaking the law, but are willing to take the consequences. In that case, is there an obligation to obey the law (don't park in this spot), or an obligation to take the consequences (pay a fine)? Is it a choice? Or is the consequence merely an enforcement of the primary obligation to obey the law?
Just trying to make you think. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Yes there is obligation. have you read about the political thoughts in the 16th century? There is a theory of contract, which means the government and its citizens have a contract with each other. Citizens agree to obey the laws and the government agree to represent them. If the govn't breaks the contract then the citizens have no obligation to obey. But under normal condition you have the obligation.
Various good points there though:
Yes there is a basic obligation to obey laws - it comes from our parents when they teach us right from wrong. By the time we are old enough and intelligent enough to decide for ourselves what is right, we have matured enough to agree with most laws (e.g. murder, rape etc). Those that we disagree with become the controversial ones (MoK mentions suffrage and poll tax, also cannabis, freedom of the Press etc).
So, yes, morals do come from our conscience, and these morals do generally go along with the law. When they don't, we object.
Reason vs Obligation? Well it goes back to the point about independent thought. As we get older, we understand the reasons behind laws, and thus we obey them not out of an unqualified obligation but because we personally agree with the law.
RE Parking. This really justifies punishment. Laws and Punishments obviously go hand in hand. If we choose to park on a Red Route or double yellow, we are prepared to take the risk that we will get caught and fined, because the punishment is not relatively severe. With murder the punishment is harsher, so we think twice. So perhaps punishments are just a back-up for our own consciences <IMG SRC="confused.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> I think I've confised myself, but I think that makes some sort of sense. <IMG SRC="smile.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Not at all, many laws are passed inpite of public opinion - such as the Poll Tax.
How many people agree with licencing laws, what about the ban on fox hunting which has widespread support, cannabis use, capital punishment...many tof these are contentious issues. Personally I doubt I will ever agree with my MP on many - so could you say that he represents my views?
Remember that this Govt only recieved 20-odd percent of available votes..you really shouldn't put so much faith in them.
Besides, you are then also assuming that Politicians have integrity...
~~~~
I think Scarletts last point was very valid. many of the things we do are based on our own set of morals. The murder example is a good one...
What you need to ask yourself, is how many things is it that you avoid doing because the <STRONG>law</STRONG> says you can't...?
Your actions will generally be carried out according to your own set of morals, whilst the law and the morals of the majority will mostly be the same there are several contentious issues where they mey diverge.
We should challenge laws if we think they are wrong, if our set of laws was perfect then they would never change. Seeing as they are changing all the time we should actively think about them in accordance to our own morals and challenge them if we think they are wrong.....
Laws are, at least in one sense, attempts to codify morality. However, in that sense, they are doomed to fail and frequently be incorrect -- rigid, simplistic rules for a highly complex and dynamic system.
Laws can also be made simply to serve those with the power to enact and repeal them. In such a case the art of government is to make the populace believe that its good is best served by what the rulers plan to do to best serve themselves.
In another sense laws are just rules for a game, rules by which the participants agree to play. This is, in my opinion, the most intelligent attitude to take, since it means that such people recognize the transitory nature of laws. If it becomes necessary -- and it does -- such people can bend or even break their rules in order to serve a moral code far in excess of their statute books.
An obligation to obey laws? No more than there is an obligation to not pick up the ball in a game of soccer, or tackle at neck-height in rugby.
Do I feel myself constrained to obey the law? Hell, no. I am constrained only by my own morality.
Probably not many, I don't steal because I don't want to damage my reputation. I dont kill someone cos its just not my moral standard. I wont decide if these things are legal or illegal in the first place.
And if you dont agree with your MP, then why did you choose that person in the first place? Also you got the chance not to vote for that person in the next election. Of course I know politicans do not necessary have integrity, but they could pay the price of being rejected from their voters.
<STRONG>I</STRONG> didn't. It was the morons which live near me who did. I voted for one of the other candidates.
<STRONG>
Have you ever heard of safe seats? The consituency where I live is a Tory stronghold, it's been Tory for over 100 years and even with the massive swing in 1997 (repreated here in 2001) the chinless wonder I have as my MP - Julian Brazier - <STRONG>still</STRONG> had a majority measure in 1000s.
To give you a flavour of his politics, I should mention that he supported John Redwood's leadership campaign against Major.