Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Cato

Resisting arrest for breaking an unjust law

Recommended Posts

Is it immoral to resist arrest for breaking an unjust law?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Probably.

Do I need to add more starting assuptions for you to have a defintive answer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're trying to save lives like the people hiding Jews in World War II or being part of the Underground Railroad before the Civil War, than no. In that case the "law" was evil. There are circumstances in which it isn't wrong. But for the most part it is and you probably shouldn't resist arrest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you're trying to save lives like the people hiding Jews in World War II or being part of the Underground Railroad before the Civil War, than no. In that case the "law" was evil. There are circumstances in which it isn't wrong. But for the most part it is and you probably shouldn't resist arrest.

What are the requirements for deeming a law as evil?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it goes directly against God's law, than it should be considered evil.

Is that an "if and only if?"

What if a law was passed stating that if you wear a red shirt, you would be arrested and then put to death? Would it be immoral for a violator of this law to resist arrest and flee?

Edited by Cato

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not immoral to break a law which oppresses the people. God did not allow His people to be oppressed.

 

For instance, if you rebel against the one-child policy in China, it is China who was wrong, NOT you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this about weed? I have a feeling this is about weed.

Regardless, I'm going with a "Morality is subjective" and leaving it at that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is wrong to resist arrest in most circumstances because the law is a necessary condition of any just society, and the possibility of law enforcement is a necessary condition of the law. Some laws might be unjust, but the law itself...not so much

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is not immoral to break a law which oppresses the people. God did not allow His people to be oppressed.

 

For instance, if you rebel against the one-child policy in China, it is China who was wrong, NOT you.

 

The question being asked is not whether it is immoral to break an unjust law, but, if you do break one, whether it would be immoral to resist arrest. Should you still submit to the consequences of law-breaking?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always feel that this question is useless unless it is being asked from the position of a minority.

If you are breaking the law in resistance to being abused and oppressed by the majority, is it right to resist submitting to an oppressive power when you fully expect to be treated unjustly?

I don't know how I would answer, but it is very easy to answer as a middle-class, white, american male; how easy would it be to answer if you'd been on the wrong side of "justice" your entire life, who has seen firsthand the corruption of the system you are asking to submit to?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think resisting arrest for some unjust law would be wrong, considering it is basically you protesting it, which an unjust law should be protested.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If it goes directly against God's law, than it should be considered evil.

 

The law is based off of the Bible, but now it has fallen astray. So technically, we're breaking the law. XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Take the hypothesis that violent resistance to the state itself will lead to a generally more peaceful and lasting civil order. How much support can we gather for such an idea?

From my limited perspective, it seems like violent disorder is rarely successful, and that when it does succeed, it frequently simply toggles oppression rather than end it (for example, when a Protestant King comes to power after a long line of Catholic tyrants and begins burning Catholics at the stake.)

The response might be that there are simply no alternatives open to oppressed minorities. Violent resistance is the best of bad options. I'm skeptical of this claim, given the extent to which liberal reform has and continues to proceed on a generally peaceful basis in the west.

Edited by Chris-M

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Oxford dictionairy gives us this definition for moral: "Concerned with or derived from the code of behaviour that is considered right or acceptable in a particular society"

As you see, moral depends on the society.

Even though each society has its own law, that law does not have to be a representation of the moral of that society, yet it can be. So only after we check that, we can decide whether resisting in that situation is moral/immoral.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×