No they are not. I state that they cannot break a crime for which there are set punishments and expect not to be punished because the crime was acceptable. either they are in an unjust country with unjust laws and so face the consequences because the world is an unfair place or they live in a just country and the crime is considered to be just or just enough not to have changed in which case they committed a crime and that has consequences.
I said they have to accept that those are the consequences of the act. Cause and effect, when performing the act you decide if it is worth the consequences. If the consequence for getting caught with the likelihood of getting caught is less than the consequence of not breaking the law then break it, but you can’t be surprised if you are caught and must face the penalty. None of that makes it just or fair and that doesn’t mean they deserve it but they accepted that when they chose the path they did.
It also puts me in a list with Churchill, Washington, many conscientious objectors and suffragettes and Nelson Mandela
and you in a category with rapists, serial killers, the westbro baptist church and scientologists
so picking and choosing really does not add to an argument it is in fact the logical fallacy of guilt by association.
No that’s not true, I feel gravity is unjust but I cannot break it. (Yes I am taking the piss now because your statement seems to have reduced to that). You believe it depends upon the law, but that is your opinion. Assuming all humans are decent and know morally what is right and wrong that would be a reasonable argument, but then laws would be unnecessary. Laws exist because that is not the world we live in and so it is not down to an individual to decide what is right and wrong and which laws to follow. Whether it is right or wrong we operate on a policy of don’t allow people to break any laws (even if they are unjust) and they wont break laws that are just.
Case in point a jury. A jury does not decide if a law is just or not, they determine if a person is guilty or not. Following that decision the judge may have required sentencing (in which case if the law is unjust they would still have to give a minimum sentence).
I guess really it comes down to faith in humanity. I have little faith in humanity and would rather people were forced to follow all laws so that they don’t break the important ones. You seem to believe that a person should be allowed to break any laws they wish and then it should be decided if they are in the wrong. I think that requires a lot of faith in humanity. The same humanity who kicked the child out of school for shaving his head when he knew it was against the rules.
