If something is illegal, is it necessarily wrong, since the laws that oppress us change from year to year?

Question

So is it possible that doing something illegal is not morally wrong, it's just not conforming to the government's rules?

This is not a question about immigration. It's about pot. Sure, it's illegal today. But a year from now, who knows? So does that mean it's wrong to smoke today, but in a year or so, if it's legalized, it won't be wrong anymore?

Answer 1

NO.

Slavery was wrong but there was a time in the USA that the law allowed for trafficking in human beings and possession as property for servitude.

Then, after the slaves were ``freed,'' the law provided for racial segregation--which was wrong.

The drug laws in USA are a DIRECT descendant of the endemic racism and intolerance for different peoples and their cultural heritage. ``Marihuana'' was NOT in wide use with WHITE PEOPLE when is was first made illegal. It was popular with Negroes and Mexicans.

Why do you think more blacks and Latinos are locked up for drugs? It's not by accident or coincidence--IT'S BY DESIGN!

``God bless America'' (yeah, right!)

If anyone believes the United States is a country that cherishes and defends Liberty, think again:

"WHAT, then, is the rightful limit to the sovereignty of the individual over himself? Where does the authority of society begin? How much of human life should be assigned to individuality, and how much to society? ...As soon as any part of a person's conduct affects prejudicially the interests of others, society has jurisdiction over it, and the question whether the general welfare will or will not be promoted by interfering with it, becomes open to discussion. But there is no room for entertaining any such question when a person's conduct affects the interests of no persons besides himself, or needs not affect them unless they like (all the persons concerned being of full age, and the ordinary amount of understanding). In all such cases there should be perfect freedom, legal and social, to do the action and stand the consequences."
John Stuart Mill (1806–1873), "On Liberty" (1869)
Chapter IV: Of the Limits to the Authority of Society over the Individual

Answer 2

Common law has long recognized two types of crimes "malum in se" (wrong of itself) and "malum prohibitum" (wrong because it is prohibited).

Crimes which harm other people, destroy property, or which are done with a deliberate intent to cause pain to others are wrong of themselves. They would be wrong whether illegal or not, and they are wrong independent of any particular religious or moral code. Think of wrong as meaning dysfunctional, in that these actions hinder the proper functioning of society.

Crimes that don't harm other people (directly or indirectly) may be prohibited by law, but they are not inherently wrong. Many things that are illegal do not hinder the functioning of society. For example, speeding. In and of itself, going 10 miles above the speed limit or driving without insurance does not cause any direct harm. It does increase the risk of harm. But the government decides to punish just increasing the risk, even if no harm actually occurs. That's an example of malum prohibitum.

Most drugs also fall into the same category. They are malum prohibitum, because taking them only harms the individual and that should be up to the individual. Just like you can't charge someone with battery for hitting themself over the head with a baseball bat. Malum prohibitum crimes can change, without an corresponding affect on social or cultural morality.

Answer 3

Morality is personal. There is no right or wrong when it really comes down to it. There are definitely things that are distasteful and repugnant to the individual. Sometimes laws are made to prevent these kinds of things if those in power are offended by them. But, laws are not a measure of morality, merely a measure of controlling the masses and ensuring community safety (and sometimes of ensuring that the less fortunate stay that way). So, legal things aren't necessarily "right" and illegal things aren't necessarily "wrong." Unless legality matches your personal morals.

Answer 4

To address the first question: answer is: Absolutely not.
Based on the cold hard facts-- just look up the old laws that are still on the law books today, and were never taken off, but absolutely have no relivancy today. (Years and Years, and Years ago!)
And, They are STILL on the law book, still considered technically "illegal", and yet totally irrelevant to today's society!!!
The answer is absolutely not--however, if it pertains to violence, rape, stealing, etc. Yes, that is wrong AND illegal--Thank goodness.

But, It IS too bad we can't "legislate kindness, respect, and honesty though"...answered by question addict.

To answer the second question, it would totally be up to your conscience and / or religion. In other words: "take those things up with God" because he's above our so-called government!
Thank God for that too!

Answer 5

Well, the more laws a nation has, the easier it is to break the law. Of course it's possible to do something illegal but not break any moral laws. Take for instance the following scenario:

Your loved one is very sick. This person will die without medication. The local pharmacy has the medication but your loved one can't afford it. You break into the pharmacy and steal the medication.

Ask yourself...who is the criminal? You, the person who is trying to make your loved one feel better?

OR

The pharmacy and the pharmaceutical monsters who would with hold treatment for monetary reasons?

Lets face it, pharmaceutical companies are evil entities anyway.

One could argue that stealing is still stealing BUT, I would say, "Screw 'em."

Answer 6

inhabitants is a bypass not a static style. Mules might want to bypass both procedures. drugs over, money and guns back. the U. S. facilitates this bypass because it provides a huge Democratic balloting block in a conventional Republican element of the country. Many people of Mexican/Indian extraction who've been the following on account that Ca, TX became states have confronted hostility with the aid of their heritage, yet are US electorate. maximum don't like the illegals because they purely tarnish their problematic gained claims of attractiveness. The Republicans, regrettably have not been all too trustworthy with unlawful immigrations. Mexico in the course of the 1980-1990's used unlawful flows northward to rid itself of it extra mail uneducated inhabitants yet busing them North. Republican exploited this to bypass the market with affordable worker's. even as those people moved to the North States --- Union observed the prospect for a achievable grab. There are about 20 million unlawful interior the U. S. from Mexican or Latin American resources. see you later because the U. S. tolerated the polices of the State of Mexico we are able to proceed to have this example. we do not enable Canadians flood over the border. We deliver Haitian back. with the aid of laxity people governance percentis now permitting export of chinese language to the U. S.. they could be spies or psychological resources brokers yet they are going to plead persecution and non secular liberty and some damn team of liberals will foyer to save them.

Answer 7

It is not wrong to break a Law if such a law is a Violation of God's Will.

For instance if a Law says you cannot Pray to God then you must Pray to him anyways.

Answer 8

There is no wrong behavoir. No sins. Just good deeds and bad deeds. One example of a bad deed is to be selfish. I don't know if there are any more bad deeds or not. It would only be wrong according to the government.
Gnosticism is the truth.

Answer 9

Is this age old, I should steal if I am hungry routine? Who is not moral? The perpetrator or the owner of the market?

Answer 10

Dear Mr. Anarchist:

Your question makes little sense.

Sincerely,
Non-oppressed, but still law-abiding citizen.