Is it morally right to break an unjust law?

[Dr. MB]

Of course it is. Don't be a bootlicker.

[Dr. MB]

It was not I who said such a society would fall into anarchy. You said that if you have the right defy break the law because it opposes your personal idea, whether your personal idea of divine law or your personal idea of morality, such a right would lead to anarchy. But whether such a right exists or not, the possibility of such defiance exists - and has our society then become anarchy?

Our society is governed by an unwritten idea: the idea of universal brotherhood of all mankind, and the application of such alone is disputed. Nobody disputes the idea in and of itself, and so we do have a common idea of morality and right and wrong.

Also, just a note to anybody else reading: notice that he did not disavow or disagree with that last line of my first post. His ideas are that of a universal, “utopian” uniformity - an entirely common morality, which he claims is needed so that laws are followed, will naturally produce such.

I did not "disavow or disagree" with that line because I thought it was apparent how absurd of a question it was. I did not take it seriously and did not think you did either. However, let me clarify my position: I would very much like to say that one should be able to violate the law if it conflicts with their moral standards. However, I cannot find a way to apply this universally without allowing people to violate the law whenever it suits them. Therefore, I am forced to conclude that the law remains the only objective metric by which we can judge a person's actions. If you have another measure we can use, feel free to suggest it.

Our society has not become anarchy because we do not recognize "This law conflicted with my personal subjective morality" as an acceptable defense in court. I thought that was obvious.

And as for the universal brotherhood of mankind, all I can say is... lol.

Yes I do believe everyone should only follow a law if it agrees with their moral views, that's why I believe a society where you have people with fundamentally different views of what is moral or immoral is destined to fail as you might have one group of people considering one thing moral and another set consider that thing immoral, only a society where everyone has the same basic worldview is capable of functioning in the long run. The experience of history is societies where you have different worldviews on fundamental matters present tend to fail eventually.

I'm sorry, but I really find this to be a ridiculous statement. So you condone the actions of any person who breaks the law so long as they are doing so because of their own subjective morality? Of course you don't. You only endorse lawbreaking when that person's conception of morality aligns with your own. Would you give a blanket license to jihadists to kill heretics because the law against murdering non-believers "doesn't agree with their moral views?" I know that's an extreme example, but if you're going to condone unlawful behavior based on your own subjective morality, then logically you have to condone it for the subjective morality of all others as well. That is, unless you claim to have some sort of monopoly on knowing what is and is not moral, in which case you should have no trouble explaining how that standard works, objectively speaking.

Of course it is. Don't be a bootlicker.

What objective standards do you set for when it is and isn't moral to break the law, then?

That’s a tough one. Honestly I can’t give a clear answer to that. It’s gonna depend on the person obviously.