You make for a poor human being yourself. A good human being cares more for the state of humanity and the safety and success of society than his own selfish ends. You make for a great anarchist though.
When a person is told that performing an act will result in punishment if they choose to perform the act then they must accept the consequences. There are means to effect change other than ignoring the rules. The child and his mother accept the treatment he receives and the legitimacy of the rule as a broad rule.
You should consider a world in which all laws are not rules to be followed unless you agree with them.
I raise to you three points:- 1. if a rule is malleable until diagnosed by the public as just or not what is to stop the government from arresting you for a crime and holding you indefinitely before you receive this judgement? After all until they are found to be doing moral wrong their action is acceptable.
-
Who is to decide what is morally right or wrong? Perhaps a jury of your peers? In which case what you are referring to is common law and makes up 90% of British law (depending on the source you read this varies) meaning that justification and justness in the eyes of the people has been established and if you oppose the law you are therefore opposing the same principal you are saying should be followed to determine whether a person has done wrong deserving of punishment.
-
[quote=“NathanHornby, post:156, topic:11315”]
And if the law isn’t flexible enough to allow for it to be fairly applied, then it’s broken.
[/quote]
the law is not broken when it is not fairly applied, the law is broken when people have the liberty to decide if it is the law or not based on their own conscious. In a world where people will make the right decision and be accurate in their decision as to whether it applies the law is no longer necessary. We do not live in this world. The world we live in requires the law to be upheld. And British law does not excuse a person for breaking a law because the Law is unjust, instead it offers means to challenge and rectify those laws. Teaching a child that breaking the law is wrong when other avenues exist is important and exactly what a school should be doing. However I am sure you know better than the legal experts who maintain the British legal system and the board who have devoted their lives to teaching and raising children to be responsible members of society. After all who am I to question a random on the internet who uses an episode of Star Trek and labelling me as a questionable human being as his only evidence.
