That's because I have done something wrong. If I would have done what I should have done, then I would not of had to face the consequences.

The problem (I think) is that those who believe it's morally wrong to follow the law in that instance will disagree with what I have said, but that's because they do not recognize that "should" and "wrong" are being used in a sense that is not moral.

In other words, when I said, "That's because I have done something wrong," I do not mean I have done something immoral. Instead, I mean I have done something illegal. When I said, "If I would have done what I should have done," others are apt to misinterpret "should" as being in the moral sense.

It's as if people's default understanding is that I'm using the words in a moral sense unless I otherwise make explicit that I am not using those terms in a moral sense.

Sam,

thus, a moral man or woman will fight the law, because of a contradiction, unreasonableness, and notions of injustice. Gandhi, King, Mandela, Washington, Jefferson etc all fought against the state or nations because of contradictions and injustices in Law.

---------- Post added 01-23-2010 at 05:25 PM ----------

That is the problem of civil disobedience. When does the injustice of the law trump the obligation to obey the law, especially when the law is a law enacted in a democratic society where the low is supposed to be an embodiment of the will of the people by their elected representatives? Only King (among all the names you mentioned) is relevant to this issue. And King wrestled with this problem all his life. See his, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".

It would seem that a democratic society would remove the need for civil disobedience. But we can't forget that democracies rarely exist without any corruption and even in an instance where a perfect democracy could exist, the majority still has the power to oppress the minority. If a large enough portion of the population believes something, they can enact legislation through representatives that supports that. When that legislation immorally oppresses a minority, civil disobedience seems like the only option.

Or democratic methods are used to rectify the injustice.

But what about circumstances where democratic action cannot succeed, even when faced with an immoral law? A majority doesn't need to be right, it just needs to be a majority which leaves a very large place in a democracy for oppression. Not to mention this entire reliance on democracy implies that the actions of an individual should be governed by his or her neighbors, rather than just their own beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, democracy is great. But it leaves open a lot of situations that need to be filled with individual decision making and moral systems, rather than societal ones.

That is the problem of civil disobedience. When does the injustice of the law trump the obligation to obey the law, especially when the law is a law enacted in a democratic society where the low is supposed to be an embodiment of the will of the people by their elected representatives? Only King (among all the names you mentioned) is relevant to this issue. And King wrestled with this problem all his life. See his, "Letter from a Birmingham Jail".

But what about circumstances where democratic action cannot succeed, even when faced with an immoral law? A majority doesn't need to be right, it just needs to be a majority which leaves a very large place in a democracy for oppression. Not to mention this entire reliance on democracy implies that the actions of an individual should be governed by his or her neighbors, rather than just their own beliefs.
Don't get me wrong, democracy is great. But it leaves open a lot of situations that need to be filled with individual decision making and moral systems, rather than societal ones.

Then the question remains whether it is not better to suffer the injustice rather than violate the law. It will depend on the injustice, and also on the consequences of violating the law. The presumption is always against violating the law, and that presumption has to be defeated.

Your are highly mistaken to believe that 'Only King is relevant to this issue.' But if it is convenient, to discuss King we can do that.




And therfore, democrasies has its flaws. The problem and contradictions arise when people with 'vested interest' get elected.



While working within the system, a moral person 'should' not think about consequence's. Suffering an injustice, is an injustice by itself.

------------

Ultimately, the question is what 'should' be done? The saints always advice us that 'do what your conscience says', 'do what is right', and Gandhi would say 'follow the truth, the morals and humble the opponent without violating or humiliating the others rights'.

None of the others, except for King, were violating the laws of a democratic society. So King is, in fact, the only one relevant to our discussion.
I think it would be stupid not to think about the consequences of one's actions. Only fanatics do that. Even the saints can be wrong, and, as for Gandhi, he was more often wrong than he was right.

America, India and South Africa was under a rule of a democratic Nation.

And may I know why Gandhi 'was MORE OFTEN wrong than he was right.'
ps: emphasis added

Then the question remains whether it is not better to suffer the injustice rather than violate the law. It will depend on the injustice, and also on the consequences of violating the law. The presumption is always against violating the law, and that presumption has to be defeated.

That goes back to Kohlberg's stages of moral development. At a midrange stage you would be absolutely right. One would consider the level of injustice and consequences and one would begin assuming the law was morally correct to begin with. Higher levels of development don't concern themselves with that. Any injustice would be worth fighting for.

This may seem extreme but we should remember that injustices tend to increase in time and many things the majority accepts eventually comes to be seen as morally wrong after it has grown too large to easily strike down. The best example of this is probably American slavery.

If a higher level of development person makes a federal case about a trivial injustice, he is a fool. A wise person picks his battles according to necessity. If you dissipate your energies on triviality, how will you be able to deal with something important?

Is any injustice trivial? I'm not considering legislature one simply disagrees with immoral. I'm discussing policy that is actually against one's moral beliefs. And the greatest injustices always seem to grow from the smallest ones. Historically speaking, we tend to make the same mistake your endorsing now, letting the small injustices go unchallenged. By doing this, those injustices escalate to a level where we cannot easily combat them.

It was? Which nation was that? The British Empire? Statistically. For instance, he told the Jews that they ought to offer passive resistance to the Nazis. Somewhat idiotic, don't you think?

Statistically????..... or ...... POLITICALLY! :perplexed:

Can you consider, how idiotic one can be......... if thats why 'MORE OFTEN' ONE IS WRONG THAN RIGHT. :puzzled:

'OUGHT' is that the word.

You need to check a lot of facts before you come on this.

Huh? By the way, I forgot to mention that G. offered the same advice to the British. Surrender, and offer passive resistance. He was a very silly man.