Your countries law may say that throwing a brick through Mcdonalds window is bad but you could argue that morally it is right to attack an establishment which destroys rainforests. It may be wrong to attack someone who is bullying your sibling but morally it would be wrong to let them suffer. Ok maybe these examples suck like 80s track suits but you get the point.
2006-07-14 04:06:54 · 3 answers · asked by Octavius 2 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
I think it has to be a moderation of both. Morals should drive people into doing what is right laws try to direct people into what society (politicians) have decided is correct. Using your example throwing the brick would be aginst the law but I would counter that it should also be morally wrong to destroy anothers property. There would be other effective moral ways of attacking the establishment. Since so many people have different morals then the laws help keep some people in check.
2006-07-14 04:15:22 · answer #1 · answered by Aaron R 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Your morals are also forced on you by someone who happened to be here thousands of years ago. So Our job is to determine whose logic apply to the current situation or any situation. But remember one thing . Government punishes you now and God punishes u later if god exist. So don't take chances with government.
2006-07-14 11:10:07 · answer #2 · answered by Dr M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not everything that is illegal is wrong. And not everything that is wrong is illegal.
2006-07-14 15:44:01 · answer #3 · answered by vafore 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋