The Ethics of Breaking the Law

Law is in place to keep society from dissolving. In order to maintain a functioning society, individuals give up some of their free will, knowing that in return the governing are supposed to act fairly and justly.

But, as we all know, the latter half of the bargain is not always upheld to the approval of some. We wouldn't be a country if America's founding fathers sat back and accepted laws as Britain proclaimed them.

Therefore, of course there are situations in which it is ethical -- that is, morally correct -- to break the law. Nothing exists purely in black and white. That being said, it is not something that can happen all the time; the law has to be respected most of the time or society will slip into anarchy.

I would also like to clarify that law-breaking for change does not always have to be violent. I am not a supporter of violence under any circumstances because if everybody would just stop fighting to the death, I believe progress would find more success. It's not right, under any circumstances, to kill a person, for example, no matter what point the murderer is trying to get across. It violates the victim's right to live. There have been numerous court cases in which the Supreme Court declared a law unconstitutional, especially when it comes to free speech, and the only way to have that happen was to break said law, so it is possible.

Buddhist monks protest peacefully. So can you.

That being said, I admit that's not how it is for most of us. Realistically, it seems that today, violence is the only way to get attention. It's certainly the case with the media, where the quip is "If it bleeds, it leads." PBS discusses the ethical issues behind such a philosophy. So that people break the law violently for attention is understandable, but it's still not ethical. To elaborate strays off this specific topic, though, and into general media ethics.

The issue we discussed in class regarding the Sea Shepherd Conservation Society is bordering on an unethical practice. Yes, they are acting for a good cause, if the number of incidental kills decreases. However, the fact that they haven't killed anyone yet with their chosen means of law-breaking (ramming their boat into fishermen's) is pure luck. It doesn't matter if their cause is to save fish and not humans, frankly. The lives of the fishermen are not suddenly expendable because of their practices, and this is coming from a vegetarian who does not believe it's right to kill animals for mass production. On the flip side, though, if people haven't been taking the SSCS to court because they know their actions are unethical, then they need to take responsibility and rectify those actions.

Ethics is undoubtedly a murky subject to delve into, seeing as there are so many different, personal interpretations of what is right and what is wrong. Really, all that I can say is for the most part, laws need to be respected; however, that does not mean things should be taken without question.