• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How inclined are you to follow immoral laws?

How inclined are you to follow immoral laws?

  • I do not follow immoral laws even if the chances of legal consequences are high and severe

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • I do not follow immoral laws only if there is a moderate chance of legal consequences

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • I only ignore immoral laws if there is a small chances of legal consequences

    Votes: 5 14.7%
  • I follow all laws, even if I don't morally agree with them

    Votes: 3 8.8%
  • I do what I want!

    Votes: 8 23.5%
  • other (please explain)

    Votes: 4 11.8%
  • taco rootabegas

    Votes: 7 20.6%

  • Total voters
    34
About the only law I break on a regular bases is speed limits. I leave for KC tomorrow and will probably drive 80 mph most of the trip. I don't do any illegal drugs, I never drink more than 2 and drive anymore.

In Texas, you can drive 80, and usually not get pulled over, unless you are in the metro areas. Many of our highways have a speed limit of 75.
 
In Texas, you can drive 80, and usually not get pulled over, unless you are in the metro areas. Many of our highways have a speed limit of 75.

I know, I like TX! I will be in Dallas the last week of February. Unfortunately I drive through IL alot and they make use of a construction zone every 35 miles for extra revenue.
 
Taco rootabegas has my vote! I really don't feel like I'm in any position to answer this poll due to my lack of involvement with laws I find immoral so I have no experience to help me out with what I really think.
 
I would like to know what laws you are talking about.
 
Seeing as how morality differs from person to person, I can not really say yes or no to following any immoral laws. I simply do what I believe is right so long as it harms none. Murder is obviously wrong. Driving 5 mph over the speedlimit, although technically illegal, really doesn't harm anyone so I disregard it until I see a police officer. Marriage between homosexuals really doesn't effect anyone besides the couple and their individual families with no harm involved so I don't see a problem there. Theft is wrong. Spitting on the sidewalk, although disgusting, isn't worthy of punishment. Marijuana is alright. Basically depends on personal rationalization of the situation.
 
I follow all laws because that's part of the social contract. If I disagree with a law, I will try to get the law changed, but until it actually is no longer in force, it is my responsibility to follow it, even if I disagree with it.

So if a law were to say jews should be killed on sight, or politicians have the right to have sex with your wife, you would go along with such laws? I mean, until they're changed, they're laws and must be followed, right?

I suspect you wouldn't, meaning there is in fact a limit to what you'll accept as an immoral law, yours just happens to be a lot higher than most.
 
So if a law were to say jews should be killed on sight, or politicians have the right to have sex with your wife, you would go along with such laws? I mean, until they're changed, they're laws and must be followed, right?

I suspect you wouldn't, meaning there is in fact a limit to what you'll accept as an immoral law, yours just happens to be a lot higher than most.

Those are nonsensical laws that would never exist in the United States or any first world countries. When you have to delve to this level of absurdity, it's clear that you've got no real argument to make.
 
Those are nonsensical laws that would never exist in the United States or any first world countries. When you have to delve to this level of absurdity, it's clear that you've got no real argument to make.

Bahahahaha, the "our country would never make nonsensical laws" argument. What a bunch of exceptionalist bull****. Pick up a history book, Cephus.

You're full of ****. You would NOT follow every law just because it's a law. All you've done is look at our laws and said "I can live by that, so I will." Only a coward would follow every law, no matter how heinous, just because it's a law.
 
My husband pointed out a few laws (policies) that used to exist that I could consider immoral laws (or policies). DADT and segregation. Segregation laws forced people to separate according to race, in fact even interfering with personal lives by arresting those of two different races that lived together. That is an immoral law because anytime it is enforced at all it is wrong and does harm to people without any benefit to society. DADT because it forced people to lie about or at least hide who they are simply because of who they wanted to date.
 
Bahahahaha, the "our country would never make nonsensical laws" argument. What a bunch of exceptionalist bull****. Pick up a history book, Cephus.

You're full of ****. You would NOT follow every law just because it's a law. All you've done is look at our laws and said "I can live by that, so I will." Only a coward would follow every law, no matter how heinous, just because it's a law.

Then by all means, point out the specific laws that you mentioned and exactly when those specific laws were in place in the United States... ever. I'll wait. :roll:
 
Then by all means, point out the specific laws that you mentioned and exactly when those specific laws were in place in the United States... ever. I'll wait. :roll:

You are completely unable to think outside of your little box. I gave an example of a law that you would not follow, showing you that you exaggerated when you said you would follow any law, just because it's a law.

All you've done is looked at our laws and said "Yes, I find these reasonable enough, I will follow them." So you are not obeying the law only because it's a law, you examined them and gave them a reasonability test. There have been plenty of horrible laws in history that you would've violated, and you know it.
 
You are completely unable to think outside of your little box. I gave an example of a law that you would not follow, showing you that you exaggerated when you said you would follow any law, just because it's a law.

All you've done is looked at our laws and said "Yes, I find these reasonable enough, I will follow them." So you are not obeying the law only because it's a law, you examined them and gave them a reasonability test. There have been plenty of horrible laws in history that you would've violated, and you know it.

It's just ridiculous, it's like saying there's a law that you'll cut your own head off with a rusty hacksaw. Well no, nobody would follow that, but there would never be a law like that so it's really irrelevant. Come back with some reasonable laws that might actually exist and you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's argumentum ad absurdium.
 
It's just ridiculous, it's like saying there's a law that you'll cut your own head off with a rusty hacksaw. Well no, nobody would follow that, but there would never be a law like that so it's really irrelevant. Come back with some reasonable laws that might actually exist and you'll have a point. Otherwise, it's argumentum ad absurdium.

Because you're completely unable to understand analogies, I'll give you a few real ones:

All couples staying overnight in a hotel must have a room with double beds that are at least two feet apart. Making love in the space between the beds is strictly forbidden.
- North Carolina

A woman can not be on top in sexual activities.
- Massachusetts

It is unlawful for "negroes" to be within county boundaries from sundown to sunrise. - Fairfield, Illinois

[1][2]

So you're telling me that if your city or state made a law like the one above, where women can't be on top, you would follow that law, and refuse your wife is she wanted on top? I doubt it. You'll look at the chance of being caught and the punishment, and decide if the risk is worth the reward.
 
Government should not be in in the business of legislating morality, those some may view as immoral are usually choices, no one if forcing you to be a part of a same-sex marriage.
 
Government should not be in in the business of legislating morality,

Morality is an underpinning of law.

those some may view as immoral are usually choices, no one if forcing you to be a part of a same-sex marriage.

Where there is almost universal agreement about what is wrong/immoral, there are laws against them that typically go unchallenged. Where there is division regarding whether something is moral or immoral, debate ensues.
 
Not me. I just hope not to get caught. :lol:

lol. I don't know where it comes from. Sometimes I think somethings wrong with me for being so much on the straight and narrow so to speak.

I swear a lot though...that should count for something right?
 
I cannont think of a time that I had a conflict between a law and a moral of mine so I answered other since I dont know what I would do if it did happen.
 
It is, in the sense you must allow freedom of morality.

Mmm, nope. There should be freedoms of various things, but one's belief about what is moral does not put him/her above the law of the land.

The government should not be the one to tell you what is right and wrong.

How not? It does so on behalf of the society whose members, in the absence of government doing so, would tell you what is right and wrong via other (less controlled and less desirable) methods.
 
Last edited:
Mmm, nope. There should be freedoms of various things, but one's belief about what is moral does not put him/her above the law of the land.



How not? It does so on behalf of the society whose members, in the absence of government doing so, would tell you what is right and wrong via other (less controlled and less desirable) methods.

Unless the activity does harm there is no reason to restrict it. It is freedom, it doesn't affect anyone else but you and/or a consenting partner so the government has no need to legislate on it. People already define their own morals and morals vary form person to person.
 
Last edited:
I am curious how people differentiate between legality and morality in their every day actions

Good question - this is honestly a tough one. At what point does my moral outrage suffice to justify disobedience?

At the point (I would say) where disobedience and refusal to participate is worth the punishment inflicted. For example, I believe that the minimum wage is an immoral law that hurts our poor by moving opportunity out of their reach... but if I owned a business, everyone I employed would, well, be paid at least minimum wage, and if someone came by and was willing to work for less just to get a job to get the experience... :shrug: I would probably have to tell him no, and wish him luck. It wouldn't be worth my business and the jobs of all my other employees.

But if I was ordered to (for example) violate the precepts of my faith, or actively harm an innocent human being? That would probably be worth taking the jail time that comes with Civil Disobedience.
 
Unless the activity does harm there is no reason to restrict it.

Agree.

It is freedom, it doesn't affect anyone else but you and/or a consenting partner so the government has no need to legislate on it.

So you're talking about gay marriage or gay sex or whatnot? I agree, not something ripe for government legislation/regulation.

Would you apply this rationale to wage laws? It doesn't affect anyone else but you and your trading partner so the government has no need to legislate on it.

People already define their own morals and morals vary form person to person.

Sure, beliefs about what is right and wrong may vary from person to person, but the society typically has some way of enforcing the rights and wrongs about which it widely agrees.
 
Agree.

So you're talking about gay marriage or gay sex or whatnot? I agree, not something ripe for government legislation/regulation.

Would you apply this rationale to wage laws? It doesn't affect anyone else but you and your trading partner so the government has no need to legislate on it.

Sure, beliefs about what is right and wrong may vary from person to person, but the society typically has some way of enforcing the rights and wrongs about which it widely agrees.

The government has no place in the bedrooms of the nation or the entertainment industry for that standard. I am against the government setting any moral standard.
 
Back
Top Bottom