>Should you obey laws if you think they’re wrong or immoral?
>This question was pondered by pretty much every great philosopher: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Hobbes, the list continues.
-
Follow
Following
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Battison's Blog 
>I think this is a tricky question. On the one hand we can't have everyone making up their own mind as it will mean anarchy with everyone picking and choosing what they want to obey. Yet on the other hand should you ever do something you believe to be wrong just because someone told you to?The only answer I see is one of balance. We must obey all the laws under normal circumstances. When we think legislation is wrong we must seek to learn more about it and the reasons for why the law was enacted. Yet in general we should still obey if we disagree, as long as we make sure that we publicly oppose for its replacement or destruction. Only in extreme circumstances when something crosses a subjectively defined line can we refuse to obey a certain law. In this instance however it is our duty not only to disobey the morally 'wrong' law, but to campaign/act against it.
>Ghandi disagrees with you, so does Nelson Mandela.The culture we grow up in defines many of our views on right and wrong. Therefore our natural state as a culture is one of similarity, hence if we were free tochose what we want to do there would not be anarchy.This is a word used by the powers that be to induce fear and instill obedience.If we made up our own minds some people would do as they please and upset the majority's view of right and wrong. But note that there would be a majority in the first place and ergo no anarchy.I think we should always do as we please unless we can think of a valid reason to do as someone else has requested. Isn't this the more natural state of being ?
>Technically we are all free to do what we want. And we do do what we want. But what we want is defined not only by desires for postive experiences, but also by desires to avoid negative experiences. This means that many of us can feel desires to break existing laws and yet not do so for fears of what will happen if we do so. The point I was making was that those fears are there for a reason. If we pursued these desires for positive experiences irrespective of the consequences then there would be severe consequences.Group culture can promote similarities, shared opinions etc but only up to a degree. Humans always disagree. If we did not there would be no need for complicated legislative and judicial systems. Also, as your example quite handily points out states often nurture sub cultures. Apartheid cultivated very different ideas among the ANC to the ideas of the ruling government.'The majority' only act as one group on certain matters. 99% of people could support a prison system and yet that same figure disagree about how it should be used, or how much could be spent on it. The majority may even contradict itself with 99% of people wanting safer roads and yet have 70% unwilling to wear a seatbelt all the time.And why would a 70% agreement among society prevent anarchy? Tryanny of the majority could supress the minority and force them to obey the majority's laws. But that would mean you would have to obey the laws. If no one had to obey the laws then the majority would find some laws to disobey, even if it were as petty as not wearing a seatbelt. And with time the problems would escalate. 30% of people breaking the rules would soon create a sense of injustice. Others would watch as the 30% stole to become rich and feel envy. Others would begin to steal when they thought no one was looking. Theft would mount. Businesses would fold. Theft would become more acceptable. Recession would neccessitate corruption etc etc. People in third world countries are not less moral than westerners. They are simply living in conditions where the rule of law is not enforced, and conditions have forced people to adapt and use corruption. Take the British House of Commons for example. Most MPs get into politics to help. Yet half abused the system and claimed the public's money. It was not through immorality, just a lack of enforced rules and a culture of jealousy and a 'well everyone does it' approach.