Kevin's Watch

Of course, yes. But it can also be a question of self-interest.

Sort of. It's also a question of whether or not the benefit of breaking that particular law is worth the risk of punishment or social disdain.

No one thinks twice about driving 5 mph over the speed limit, but in the strictest sense, we're all criminals.

Yeah, again, it's the definition. Breaking a law is a crime. If you commit a crime, you're a criminal. All of this is, of course, in, and maybe only in, the eyes of that specific legal system. Another legal system, or maybe even a moral system, might not view what you did as a crime. It might even view what you did as a good thing.

From a strict sense, the law is all that matters.

I agree with FF. Form a strict sense, the law is the only thing that matters -- from the law's point of view. Other frameworks can be valid.

Rosa Parks broke the law, in one framework. In another one, she protested repressive elements of her society, and was not a criminal.

Rosa Parks was a criminal. We can agree that in a larger sense, or in hindsight, what she did was brave or right, but she was in violation of the law at that time.

Morality and the law are two different things.

Interesting definitions:

American Heritage Dictionary

crime (krīm)
n.
1. An act committed or omitted in violation of a law forbidding or commanding it and for which punishment is imposed upon conviction.
2. Unlawful activity: statistics relating to violent crime.
3. A serious offense, especially one in violation of morality.
4. An unjust, senseless, or disgraceful act or condition: It's a crime to squander our country's natural resources.

crim•i•nal (krĭm'ə-nəl)

n. One that has committed or been legally convicted of a crime.

The first two definitions of "crime" focus on the law. But the second two focus or morality or ethics. If those are equally valid; then is someone who seriously breaches morality also a criminal? If so then a law that requires a serious breach of morality makes you a criminal both for following it and not following it. So, in those cases, our choice is what kind of criminal do we want to be!

..and there it is..." Law" is a human defined constrict. So, we make up all these constricts to say we are all criminals...BRILLIANT!!!,,

lurch wrote:..and there it is..." Law" is a human defined constrict. So, we make up all these constricts to say we are all criminals...BRILLIANT!!!,,

And we're all back on the guilt train again! I agree -- it's brilliant!

Aren't there laws that have been decriminalized? I'm pretty sure Pot is still technically illegal in Britain, but you can't get in trouble for owning less than a certain amount.

If it's decriminalized, then it's not lawbreaking.

Yeah. And apparently, they're considering reversing that decision despite the gains in reduction of criminal trials etc.

--A

Breaking the law is indeed a crime. But this a fundamentally meaningless statement. It's like saying A = A. The fact that breaking the law is a crime is just a legalistic expression. It ignores the larger ethical and moral questions that arise in considering the law and its role in society. Responsible, thinking citizens question every law. Power is illegitimate unless justified; this is the fundamental basis for civil disobedience and civil liberty. When Martin Luther King broke the law, he committed a crime. Did he deserve any sort of moral condemnation because he broke the law? To my mind, no: he didn't deserve moral condemnation then, and he doesn't deserve it now. His actions were justified in theory (the kind of argument I'm making now, for example). His actions were also justified in practice: the situation of African-American before the Civil Rights Movement were so repugnant that action, whether that action resulted in the breaking of laws ("crimes") or not, was indeed required.

Mahatma Ghandi is the Greatest man of the 20th century. Hands down, no one else even comes Close. (MLK is an admirable imitation) I couldn't agree more that a law is meaningless without a just purpose and application. Law without Justice is meaningless. (Like most of our Drug laws)

Retrospect is a wonderful thing. I won't argue that MLK was morally or ethically right (he clearly was). However MLK (and a great deal of the players in the Civil Rights Movement) was (were) also clearly in violation of the law, and as such could have (and should have) been arrested (or faced whatever other consequences).

They did what they felt was right, regardless of the law. History has judged them well. That doesn't change the fact that at the time, they were criminals.

I wonder. Was it actually illegal for blacks to sit in the front of the bus? Or was it just commonly accepted that they weren't allowed to?

IIRC, Rosa Parks was arrested.

Cail,

Calling someone a lawbreaker is in and of itself is ethically vacuous. In order for it to be unethical to break a law, the law must be grounded in justice. I don't think, say, Jim Crow or colonialism is just; so, civil disobedience in response to those policies would be ethical, in my view. Now, I don't see how you can defend the justness of King's cause and then justify his arrest, unless you are a jingoist who bends over backwards to defend the state. If the law King was breaking was unjust, then his disobedience is inherently justified. If you don't think Jim Crow was unjust, then, yeah, arrest and punishment was justified and a great idea. It's one or the other. To defend the state's actions in punishing civil disobedience is to defend the state's laws that are being broken in the first place.

Ethical yes...but still criminal in the only sense that the government cares about.

--A

Av,

But like I said, you can't have an argument about whether "breaking the law is a crime" because it's just a self-reflexive statement. There are more important and real questions to consider.