nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.

steddyeddy

This is a quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson. I personally agree with it. If a law is unjust it should be broken. For example if a man is gay in a country where it is illegal you can't possibly expect him to obey that can you? The only issue with this view imo is what is considered unjust is very subjective. Do you think the law comes before what you consider to be just or that personal ideas of justice should come before the law of the land?

Edited for clarity: Does legality go hand in hand with morality. Is it ever immoral not to break a law?

Further edit: My thinking here is in relation to laws retrospectively seen as unjust slavery ect and laws a sizeable amount of people consider unjust. NOTHING to do with property tax or any monetary regulation in Ireland today.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

steddyeddy

My OP is edited thus:

Edited for clarity: Does legality go hand in hand with morality. Is it ever immoral not to break a law?

the groutch

stop moaning OP, and just pay your TV license fee

wazky

Frank Lee Midere wrote: »

Right Wazky. Imagine a thought experiment. You have been arrested for being not very good at thought experiments. The penalty is

1) your hands are to be cut off
2) you are to be castrated.
3) you are to be forced to listen to Justin bieber via a permanent ear implant.

But before the sentence can be carried out the door is open in your cell. Do you avoid justice by running away? Or stay because who are you to challenge the law?

I have my hands cut off as I've always fancied having hooks, they look quite snazzy.

steddyeddy

Just to clarify when I started this thread it was because this quote is framed on the side of UCD's new law building. I haven't any Irish laws in mind at the moment.

Shakespeare's Sister

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who decides if its unjust?

When people are being harmed.
It doesn't apply here, but it does apply in e.g. Uganda, Saudi Arabia.

You'd be sorry if you disobeyed laws in those countries though, in fairness - fierce easy for the lad whose quote that is, to be going on about "obligated" to break it.
It's from another time though, when even in democracies there were unjust laws - e.g. the segregated Deep South in the US.

Mark Tapley

I think there is still a blasphemy law which is God damned awful.

MightyMandarin

That's great OP, except what is unjust in my eyes, may be otherwise in someone else, rendering this quote completely useless and way, way too simple for something far more complex.

Sunnyisland

Divorce WAS an unjust law and widely broken law in this country not to long ago and I agreed in breaking that law.

Mr. Incognito

If you dont like the law, vote for the other guy or run yourself

steddyeddy

MightyMandarin wrote: »

That's great OP, except what is unjust in my eyes, may be otherwise in someone else, rendering this quote completely useless and way, way too simple for something far more complex.

Well would you have a problem breaking a law that is unjust in your eyes? EG enslave a man?

Sociopath2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well would you have a problem breaking a law that is unjust in your eyes? EG enslave a man?

I'd have no problem breaking the laws against slavery. I'd enslave a few useful people and make my life easier

steddyeddy

Sociopath2 wrote: »

I'd have no problem breaking the laws against slavery.

Well then you have no problem breaking unjust laws.

Sociopath2

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well then you have no problem breaking unjust laws.

I agree, the laws against slavery are unjust. Why shouldn't I enslave someone if I am able to?

MightyMandarin

Sociopath2 wrote: »

I'd have no problem breaking the laws against slavery. I'd enslave a few useful people and make my life easier

Yeah ok stuff like slavery or killing people because they're gay etc. is wrong. But the way the OP has phrased it, I would have a right to not pay the TV licence, simply because I think it's 'unjust'.

View

steddyeddy wrote: »

Just to clarify when I started this thread it was because this quote is framed on the side of UCD's new law building. I haven't any Irish laws in mind at the moment.

The quotation is fake.

Any school of law displaying such a contemptuous attitude to the rule of law should be disbanded.

Bafucin

Sociopath2 wrote: »

I agree, the laws against slavery are unjust. Why shouldn't I enslave someone if I am able to?

Why shouldn't we make you obey laws we like if we are able to?

You is our bitch. We are the majority. Our empathic whims have no mercy.

You can't enslave someone because we won't let you...which means in a way you are our slave. Which is fine because you seem to think the laws against slavery are unjust anyway.

steddyeddy

MightyMandarin wrote: »

Yeah ok stuff like slavery or killing people because they're gay etc. is wrong. But the way the OP has phrased it, I would have a right to not pay the TV licence, simply because I think it's 'unjust'.

It's phrased with only the quote in mind. If a law causes harm, discriminates ect. It's also a thought experiment.

dxhound2005

A lot of this thinking seems to have become more prevalent since property tax and water charges were mooted. It is essentially Freeman on the Land stuff. Before that it usually featured in TV licence discussions. And always with some reference to slavery and apartheid.

How very convenient that this high moral stance on human rights just happens to justify people not paying out money.

steddyeddy

View wrote: »

The quotation is fake.

Any school of law displaying such a contemptuous attitude to the rule of law should be disbanded.

So there is no law throughout history or location that you would feel obliged to break? If so you agree with the quote. The quote is right IMO because it's common sense. Law is constructed by people for the people. If I think a law goes against that then I will disobey it.

steddyeddy

dxhound2005 wrote: »

A lot of this thinking seems to have become more prevalent since property tax and water charges were mooted. It is essentially Freeman on the Land stuff. Before that it usually featured in TV licence discussions. And always with some reference to slavery and apartheid.

How very convenient that this high moral stance on human rights just happens to justify people not paying out money.

Right I'm editing my OP again. It is nothing to do with any monetary law or regulation in this country at the moment.

Sociopath2

Bafucin wrote: »

Why shouldn't we make you obey laws we like if we are able to?

You is our bitch. We are the majority. Our empathic whims have no mercy.

You can't enslave someone because we won't let you...which means in a way you are our slave. Which is fine because you seem to think the laws against slavery are unjust anyway.

People try to make me obey laws every day. It doesn't work for the most part. Too much emphasis is put on enforcing them with moral standards. That works for you fine people with empathic whims, not so much for minorities like me.

Mark Tapley

I'm surprised how conservative a lot of posters are that they can't envision themselves protesting or breaking an unjust law. Ireland is generally not a place of extremes but quite a few people express extreme solutions to problems in society. I would do my utmost to obstruct these people . That is if they weren't just loonies on a forum. The demographic of boards is said to favour the young but a lot sound like dispirited old men.

Betty Bloggs

This isn't a national law as such, more like a company law or rule for employees.
Anyhow, on work experience before we were being told about procedures to follow in the case of accidents/emergencies.
A scenario was given that a person was bleeding really badly and possibly unconscious.
We were told procedure would be to of course ring an ambulance and also contact onsite medical team etc.

The workplace is about 5 -6 min drive to nearest hospital.
I asked could a person not just drive the casualty to hospital and was told no, the ambulance would be best equipped. Fair enough.
I said what if the ambulance said it would take about 30-40 mins to arrive, would it be best then to drive the person to the hospital?
Again I was told no, you should wait for the ambulance.

I know in the cases of possible spinal injury it would be best not to move a person and all, but we were talking about a scenario where you witnessed some accident like a person being injured with machinery or something, and the advice was just to wait for ambulance.

The bizarre thing was an employee could drive another employee to a doctors or hospital for more minor injuries. I don't think you were insured to do so but it could still be done if you informed a supervisor.

I can't even drive but if I could drive and witnessed a fellow employee in a horrific accident, the ambulance said it would take 40 mins and I knew I could get my friend to hospital in 5 mins, then I can't picture myself following a law like that even if it meant me getting fired.

Sociopath2

Betty Bloggs wrote: »

This isn't a national law as such, more like a company law or rule for employees.
Anyhow, on work experience before we were being told about procedures to follow in the case of accidents/emergencies.
A scenario was given that a person was bleeding really badly and possibly unconscious.
We were told procedure would be to of course ring an ambulance and also contact onsite medical team etc.

The workplace is about 5 -6 min drive to nearest hospital.
I asked could a person not just drive the casualty to hospital and was told no, the ambulance would be best equipped. Fair enough.
I said what if the ambulance said it would take about 30-40 mins to arrive, would it be best then to drive the person to the hospital?
Again I was told no, you should wait for the ambulance.

I know in the cases of possible spinal injury it would be best not to move a person and all, but we were talking about a scenario where you witnessed some accident like a person being injured with machinery or something, and the advice was just to wait for ambulance.

The bizarre thing was an employee could drive another employee to a doctors or hospital for more minor injuries. I don't think you were insured to do so but it could still be done if you informed a supervisor.

I can't even drive but if I could drive and witnessed a fellow employee in a horrific accident, the ambulance said it would take 40 mins and I knew I could get my friend to hospital in 5 mins, then I can't picture myself following a law like that even if it meant me getting fired.

That isn't a law and it's not unjust. Its a procedure put in place by people with the necessary qualifications and experience. congratulations on killing your friend.

You've completely missed the point.

Bafucin

Sociopath2 wrote: »

People try to make me obey laws every day. It doesn't work for the most part. Too much emphasis is put on enforcing them with moral standards. That works for you fine people with empathic whims, not so much for minorities like me.

We'll have to try a cattle prod.

Sociopath2

Bafucin wrote: »

We'll have to try a cattle prod.

Can't use any fun stuff like that here, you people and your rules.

Iwasfrozen

steddyeddy wrote: »

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."

I disagree as everyone's definition of unjust varies per person. If the legitimacy of the law is subject to an individuals moral code then we are left with chaos.

Having said that I believe a person should be obliged to attempt to have a law that infringes on their moral code overturned, as long as they stay within the boundaries of the law while protesting.

Bafucin

Sociopath2 wrote: »

Can't use any fun stuff like that here, you people and your rules.

I think the point of the thread is ..rules is meant to be broken

biko

"This isn't a court of justice son, this is a court of law"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IiSXGjVriUE

Betty Bloggs

Sociopath2 wrote: »

That isn't a law and it's not unjust. Its a procedure put in place by people with the necessary qualifications and experience. congratulations on killing your friend.

You've completely missed the point.

Well when I pressed it giving the 40 min for ambulance example, their reason for having to wait was for company insurance reasons. Nothing to do with it being medically best for the person. You'd think a possible death on their hands would be a bigger worry for them.

But yeah you're right, this isn't a law and so my example is not suited to this thread.