Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scout
What's wrong with a few moral constraints on society? Why does it always have to be all or nothing? Why can't we all just live together in peace and obey the laws, even the ones we don't agree with.
|
If we did that nothing would change. Some moral constraints are patently bad (i.e. Blacks not being able to marry whites, laws banning anal and oral sex, etc). If people had followed your reasoning and just obeyed the law there would be no impetus to change a pointless law.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by scout
There's a time and place for all things under the sun. To break existing laws to get what you want is not the proper way get said laws changed or make anyone particularly sympathic to your situation. I personally don't agree with some speed limit laws, does that mean it's ok and I shouldn't have to obey the laws I don't agree with? No, it means I should lobby my representives to get the laws changed.
|
I disagree. Breaking the law... especially one that is rather pointless brings attention to said pointlessness. It underscores the need to change the law. It is a form of protest. These people breaking the law, it should be noted, are also willing to do the time to see that change it made...
To get a bit hyperbolic... Do you remember someone named Rosa Parks? Or someone else named Nelson Mandela? What about Steven Biko?
These are all people who broke the law to stand up for something they believed in. There were definate consequences to their actions.
(And please don't anyone jump on me because I am hauling out some of the most exrtreme examples of this... They are, as I said above, hyperbole meant to underscore a point of view).