|
Edited on Sun Dec-12-04 09:58 PM by impeachdubya
Here's my take on it, at least partially.
And I think your question "Why do we have laws" leads into what I consider to be a rational, ethically consistent answer.
Perhaps the question should be "Why should we have laws", which can lead to a logical answer of when laws are appropriate and when law breaking is appropriate.
In my mind, one of the primary functions of laws is to govern behavior and interactions between individuals. Most people, I think, would agree that a perfectly valid function of government is to prevent individuals from doing things to other individuals that infringe on their bodies, or their liberties, or are done without their express consent. Like, say, killing them.
Other laws seek to regulate the interactions of individuals even when all the individuals involved in an interaction consent. Like, say, prostitution laws. Is two adult individuals breaking that law, by exchanging money for sex in a mutually agreed upon fashion, the same thing as one person bashing another over the head with a brick? Most folks, even defenders of such laws, acknowledge there is a moral difference.
Still other laws seek to regulate the behaviors of individuals even when those behaviors don't effect anyone else directly. Here I speak of drug laws and other laws agains "victimless crimes". I don't want to debate people who say "drug abuse and prostitution victimize society and lead to other crimes".. That may or may not be the case, but I am of the opinion that when, say, Drug abusers or anyone else commit actual crimes, then they are criminals. But when people -adults- engage in consensual activities in the privacy of their own homes, with their own bodies, I question whether that is really the legitimate purveiw of the government. Any government.
(I'm also talking about individuals, here. I don't think that the rights which should be legitimately accorded to individuals should apply to corporations. Corporations have a greater responsibility to the public at large and also have a greater capacity for damage to the general welfare. Yet it is one of the upside-down facts of existence in Modern America that Corporations have greater freedom, in many cases, and far less responsibility for their actions, than individuals do.)
I am of the opinion that there is a legitimate basis for governmental regulation, or laws, and there are areas where a government has the capacity to overreach. Someone else brought up Nazi Germany. I think that is pretty obviously an example of unjust government and unjust laws that most people could agree on. Likewise, most people would agree that laws against murder, theft, etc. are just and well within the range of legitimate subjects a Government should have the right to address. I guess the question is, is a Government whatever it defines itself as in any given situation, or does (should) a Government-any Government, all Governments- have a set and limited definition for its rights just like individuals do?
And if you are dealing with unjust laws, is it appropriate to break them?
Well, I happen to think that the morally preferable way to address unjust laws- in my mind, the most unjust laws tend to be ones which criminalize voluntary assosciations between consenting adults or behavior which involves single adults and their own personal bodies- is to attempt to change them through whatever democratic process is available. However, civil disobedience is likewise a legitimate response, and I also think that, in situations where government has clearly overreached, breaking the law is also a legitimate response. When laws against interracial sex were still on the books, who among us would tell a couple in love who happened to be black and white that they should under no circumstances be together? While in many places that might have been the prudent thing to do from a safety standpoint, morally I think not. Likewise, any gay people having sex in Texas prior to the Lawrence decision were breaking the law. Were they ethically wrong to break what was clearly an unjust law? I think not, because the law was an unwarranted extension of government power into an area which I consider not the government's business. In such cases I certainly would not personally feel comfortable indicting someone who breaks such a law.
|