Political Activism

[bunny]

A few years ago I began working for a group called Animal Liberation (I lasted about two months before other things made it impossible to continue). The first week I was there, one of the members of the group made headlines after being accused of sneaking into a yard where hundreds of sheep were penned, ready to be shipped live to the middle east, and placing ham in their water troughs. His goal (successful as it turned out) was to make the sheep "unclean" to muslims so that they would be unable to be sold - thus the sheep would not be shipped live (which is a pretty horrendous thing).

Leaving aside the ethics of this specific situation - is it morally right to act outside the law if you are genuinely attempting to enact moral change in society? His actions (or alleged actions as I believe it is still in court) were definitely detrimental to a large number of people (many farmers lost a significant income and the shipping company lost a fortune).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
A few years ago I began working for a group called Animal Liberation (I lasted about two months before other things made it impossible to continue). The first week I was there, one of the members of the group made headlines after being accused of sneaking into a yard where hundreds of sheep were penned, ready to be shipped live to the middle east, and placing ham in their water troughs. His goal (successful as it turned out) was to make the sheep "unclean" to muslims so that they would be unable to be sold - thus the sheep would not be shipped live (which is a pretty horrendous thing).

Leaving aside the ethics of this specific situation - is it morally right to act outside the law if you are genuinely attempting to enact moral change in society? His actions (or alleged actions as I believe it is still in court) were definitely detrimental to a large number of people (many farmers lost a significant income and the shipping company lost a fortune).

[/ QUOTE ]
Moral and legal are, in general, independent ideas although there is sometimes an attempt to make them coincide.

Some people believe it is always immoral to break the law even if they think the law is very bad. I tend to believe the reverse.

chez

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Moral and legal are, in general, independent ideas although there is sometimes an attempt to make them coincide.

Some people believe it is always immoral to break the law even if they think the law is very bad. I tend to believe the reverse.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you evaluate whether it was right or wrong based on some measure of the nett good. Then, if the moral change brought about (or possibly brought about) is greater than the probable damage done to others, it is a moral act - in fact that there is a moral imperative to act against the law?

[Sharkey]

You are liable for whatever injury you cause. As far as the legal system goes, that’s far from perfect.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Moral and legal are, in general, independent ideas although there is sometimes an attempt to make them coincide.

Some people believe it is always immoral to break the law even if they think the law is very bad. I tend to believe the reverse.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

So would you evaluate whether it was right or wrong based on some measure of the nett good. Then, if the moral change brought about (or possibly brought about) is greater than the probable damage done to others, it is a moral act - in fact that there is a moral imperative to act against the law?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not a utilitarian but thats the idea. If I believe a law is bad then not only is it moral to break it, it may be immoral not to break it.

[I say 'I' but I mean anyone.]

chez

[bunny]

So you may be morally compelled to break the law - but you will still have to accept whatever punishment you are sentenced to as just? Is this what you mean?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
So you may be morally compelled to break the law - but you will still have to accept whatever punishment you are sentenced to as just? Is this what you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure you always have to accept punishment. Personally I think Its true brearing in mind I live in a pretty free country. Morally, I think I should break a law that is bad and I should do it publicly and face up to the consequences (not always quietly).

chez

[Sharkey]

[ QUOTE ]
So you may be morally compelled to break the law - but you will still have to accept whatever punishment you are sentenced to as just? Is this what you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

It can happen that one is forced to break the law.

The liability, if any, is to the injured person, not a third party.

[purnell]

[ QUOTE ]
Moral and legal are, in general, independent ideas although there is sometimes an attempt to make them coincide.

Some people believe it is always immoral to break the law even if they think the law is very bad. I tend to believe the reverse.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm with you on this one, Chez. When obeying the law is immoral, I think it is necessary to do the morally right thing, and face the legal consequences.

[MathEconomist]

[ QUOTE ]
Leaving aside the ethics of this specific situation - is it morally right to act outside the law if you are genuinely attempting to enact moral change in society? His actions (or alleged actions as I believe it is still in court) were definitely detrimental to a large number of people (many farmers lost a significant income and the shipping company lost a fortune).

[/ QUOTE ]

Let's think about another way in which people might break the law to enact moral change. Lot's of people think drinking alcohol is morally wrong. Is it OK for them to break into my house and destroy/steal all of my alcohol? What if they think listening to jazz is wrong and they want to destroy my jazz collection? What if they are offended by depictions of their prophet and want to kill people who offend them? All of these are examples of people who would be breaking the law to enact moral change.

So, I think this suggests that, in general, it is not permissable to break the law to enforce your morality on others. Or at least I wouldn't want to live in a world in which people routinely behaved that way. I suppose that if you "know" that your morality is correct, then it supercedes the law, but everyone believes their morality is correct, and there's no objective way (other than legality) to distinguish who is correct.

This is, obviously, a really complicated issue that runs a lot deeper than my explanation implies, but my point is that the line of reasoning justifying this type of lawbreaking leads us to some potentially very nasty places.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
A few years ago I began working for a group called Animal Liberation (I lasted about two months before other things made it impossible to continue). The first week I was there, one of the members of the group made headlines after being accused of sneaking into a yard where hundreds of sheep were penned, ready to be shipped live to the middle east, and placing ham in their water troughs. His goal (successful as it turned out) was to make the sheep "unclean" to muslims so that they would be unable to be sold - thus the sheep would not be shipped live (which is a pretty horrendous thing).

Leaving aside the ethics of this specific situation - is it morally right to act outside the law if you are genuinely attempting to enact moral change in society? His actions (or alleged actions as I believe it is still in court) were definitely detrimental to a large number of people (many farmers lost a significant income and the shipping company lost a fortune).

[/ QUOTE ]

Are the sheep theists, agnostics or atheists?

[chezlaw]

If someone thinks it morally right to break into your house to destroy your alcohol then morally thats the right thing for them to do (not btw implied by them believing drinking alcohol is wrong)

and your may well believe that morally you're right to organise a police and legal system to protect you.

chez

[bearly]

this is some pretty sloppy thinking from an ordinarily tight head. john hinkley? mark chapman? you did not qualify who constitutes a 'someone'. i don't know if you can. this makes your "reverse" answer (above) lead to some pretty nasty and dangerous going---even for you and those who believe as you.........................b

[evolvedForm]

[ QUOTE ]
So you may be morally compelled to break the law - but you will still have to accept whatever punishment you are sentenced to as just? Is this what you mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

Isn't that the heart of civil disobedience? The point is to act in a way you believe to be moral, and by acting in such a fashion, get the courts to change their position.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
this is some pretty sloppy thinking from an ordinarily tight head. john hinkley? mark chapman? you did not qualify who constitutes a 'someone'. i don't know if you can. this makes your "reverse" answer (above) lead to some pretty nasty and dangerous going---even for you and those who believe as you.........................b

[/ QUOTE ]

hmmm. So explain to me how you can explain to anyone its not right to do what they believe to be right?

chez

[bearly]

ahmmmmm.......you already know the answer, so won't waste much time. this is meta-analysis---better called 'talk about talk'. i wouldn't ask you to explain to me how you would explain to someone that your name is chez, it is. i wouldn't ask you to explain to me how you would explain to someone holding you down and cutting off your ring finger why they should not do what they obviously believe to be the right thing to do. if you say that they don't really believe it's right, you can head back to my original comment, or a's ethics...little-cited section on "the brutish"...........b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
ahmmmmm.......you already know the answer, so won't waste much time. this is meta-analysis---better called 'talk about talk'. i wouldn't ask you to explain to me how you would explain to someone that your name is chez, it is. i wouldn't ask you to explain to me how you would explain to someone holding you down and cutting off your ring finger why they should not do what they obviously believe to be the right thing to do. if you say that they don't really believe it's right, you can head back to my original comment, or a's ethics...little-cited section on "the brutish"...........b

[/ QUOTE ]
exactly we both already know the answer. The right thing for anyone to do is that which they believe to be right, its nonsense to suggest they should do otherwise, doesn't mean they can be persuaded to change their mind about what they believe to be right - the word 'obviously' came from you not me.

I'm not sure what you disagreement is with what I said, although you had a go at my mate Mark Chapman - I know he beat me at footie the other day but thats no excuse.

Perhaps it would help if you spoke less obscurely /images/graemlins/smile.gif

chez

[bearly]

i do believe that i write austerely...........there is a reason for this.....................40 years worth..........i could suggest the .....but i won't............b

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
i do believe that i write austerely...........there is a reason for this.....................40 years worth..........i could suggest the .....but i won't............b

[/ QUOTE ]
It would help if you wrote to your audience, I honestly dont understand your point. Probably my fault but a shame as it could be interesting.

chez

[Nielsio]

Oh, give me a break. You have no idea what morality is. And besides that, the environmentalism movement isn't about the environment; it's a sick joke.

Check out the podcasts about environmentalism from Stefan Molyneux:
http://www.freedomainradio.com/index_files/listen_in.htm

[FredBoots]

By "Animal Liberation", do you mean ALF?

Anyway, to your question. Morality and law are not the same, but are usually close. The main reason they can’t be totally reconciled is proof: the law must err on the side of caution so the innocent aren’t punished. (This shouldn’t trouble Christians much, because ultimately God judges all of us.)

I certainly believe there are things that are illegal but morally right (e.g., marijuana) and there are things that are/were legal but morally wrong (e.g., segregation, slavery).

I tend to think that violent civil disobedience is immoral in most cases, mainly because these people tend to treat others as a means to an end, rather than an end in themselves (e.g., killing abortion doctors to stop abortions). Frankly, violent civil disobedience is pretty unpalatable in our society now due to 9/11. What’s the difference between ALF blowing up a university animal research lab and flying a plane into the Pentagon?

Peaceful disobedience tends to work better, anyway.

[HLMencken]

I have decided in my second go-around here to simply put people who show themselves to be incapable of a rational debate on ignore rather than even be tempted to directly respond to their drivel.

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, give me a break. You have no idea what morality is. And besides that, the environmentalism movement isn't about the environment; it's a sick joke.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's kind of my ignorance on what morality is that prompted me to ask the question. Do you have an answer?

[RJT]

I think it is better to try to enact moral change in society from within the system – through the legislature. Once we decide to accept (remain) living in a particular society (with its rules and regulations) we should accept its pros and cons. No society is going to be utopian.

The debate should sure be fought in the (already) agreed upon arena (again, the legislature). I don’t see many instances (your particular example included) where this should not be the case.