Heather asked:

Is there ever justification in breaking the law?

===========

This is not exactly a question that has escaped people's notice, in the last few thousand years. There
is so much literature on this that I don't know where to start in referring you to it. The short answer to
your question is "yes". The long answer is to debate the question, "What is the relationship between
law and ethics/morality?" Clearly legal principles, not to mention those actually passed into law, are
not equivalent to moral principles. Ok, how and where are they different? You've got a huge amount
of reading in ethics before you if you want to address this one. Good luck!

Steven Ravett Brown

This is a question that has been asked down the ages, the answers are extensively varied. As the
question resides within the bounds of moral philosophy there is a strong subjective element in the
way in which it is perceived, which obviously influences the resulting answer. A further complication is
provided by the ongoing argument in moral philosophy as to whether we are born with an intrinsic
awareness of what is rightand what iswrong, or whether this is acquired from parental influence
and/or those we admire.

Those with a religious orientation, particularly christians, often believe that it would be wrong to break
or oppose any law : the accepted laws of God seem to these devotees to somehow equate with the
laws of man. In fact, one accepted law of God is that we are all supposed to bow to authority, and to
accept without question the laws of our elected, or, indeed, imposed leaders. A very happy situation
for bloodthirsty, psychopathic, monarchs in the past, whose authority was established through the
backing of the church. In fact, the founder of the Anglican Church, Henry the Eighth, had a worse
record than Jack the Ripper, disposing of anyone by so-called law who got in his way, aided and
abetted by the leaders of the church, who, of course, benefitted both materially and in status from
their support. Most of the atrocities this monarch, and indeed others, perpetrated were based on the
law ofTreason, a very convenient law which could be revised, enhanced or slanted to suit the
immediate purpose; anyone accused of treason very rarely escaped the rack, the axe, the rope or the
sword. The very word struck terror in the population, making many feel that they were constantly
walking a tightrope. Would it have been justifiable to break it? Of course it would, but the penalties
imposed for doing so, as we have seen, were harsh, hence very few deliberately did so, those who
suffered the penalty were usually the victims of concocted stories or situations.

The above is an example of laws laid down by despotsand tyrants, usually not for the good of the
community but to protect their own interests and well being, and to maintain their hold on power. It
bears out the proposition that in general 'man makes laws to suit himself.' When the privileged are
represented by by governments which support their interests, then laws are made to suit the
privileged, there is a bias towards the well-off, land owners, big business, etc., The underprivileged
are nearly always seen to be the ones breaking the law, for the simple reason that the laws are
stacked against them. In the past, and to some extent today, the laws of property rights were far more
important than human rights, the penalty for stealing was hanging, usually it was the starving poor
who stole.

The laws I have so far referred to were and are unjust, personally, I have no problem in saying that
there is every justificationin breaking them. On the other hand, I see no justification in breaking laws
that are in place for the protection of the public at large. I have no difficulty in accepting that the evil
factions in society should be subject to strict laws bearing harsh penalties for breaking them.
However, if such laws are not even-handed and the penalties are modified for the rich and famous, as
we have recently seen in the media, then this again I am strongly opposed to.

Law makers usually have an eye on the political situation and/or a strong leaning towards some
ideology. Consider the current laws in countries like Iraq and China, the former laws in Nazi
Germany, Fascist Italy or Stalin's Soviet Union. People were reluctant to break these laws, not
because they believed in them, but because to do so was life-threatening.

To sum up then, whether laws can justifiably be broken depends on your point of view and your
ethical and moral concepts. Personally, I have always believed that unjust laws are there to be
broken. Also I believe that there is no justification in breaking laws simply because we dislike them, in
such cases we can do no more than object and stick to our democratic instincts.

John Brandon