Legalism

[Fool]

That's a very good question. A person stealing your oranges would reduce the amount of money you get from selling them and consequently you and/or your dependants might go hungry as a result. Which could in turn lead to them needing to steal to eat.

If you're open to suggestions on where this thread should go, may I suggest that it might be more at home in the Philosophy section as your questions about morality & law and which affects which seem like they belong there more than in the section for debating religions? I was going to ask you privately but apparently I can't.



I think @Fool is asking us if it would be more moral of him to let someone steal from him and impact his own needs (and those of any dependants he might have) or more moral to report the man for theft and as a result ensure he stays hungry (assuming he doesn't get 'three hots and a cot'). So the sort of answer you've given doesn't seem entirely helpful or pertinent.

sorry for the misspelling of "still" vs "steal".

yes, you're welcome to move the thread but it was an inference to the golden rule in general.

if I have more than enough to feed myself today and the following weeks, and another does not, then my family and I don't have a need. a need is immediate. like air, there is a limited amount of time, in which, the self is at risk.

 

[Fool]

There's a difference in perspective. Your first question addressed the person who is choosing to break a law or not. The second question addressed the person deciding whether to punish the first person, given that the law has been broken. They're different perspectives with different factors at work.

For instance, maybe the man rushing his wife to the hospital could have avoided the need for the hospital at all by removing sources of injury risk from the home or encouraging her to get routine check-ups. They could even spend their spare time in the hospital (volunteering, perhaps) so that if the need for the hospital arose, they'd already be there and there would be no need to break any speed limits to get there.

I'm not clear how you intended your first question. I can interpret it two ways:

- "Is what is legal necessarily moral?"
- "Is it possible to be moral while always obeying the law?"

In either case, the answer is "depends on the law." However, neither one necessarily has anything to do with the question of how the law should respond when someone feels compelled to break it.

defense of self is breaking the/a law?

when a cop breaks the speed limit in his cruiser and chasing a criminal, it is immoral? when a person is hungry and they steal, it's immoral? when self shoots someone in defense, the law is broken?

is self-preservation immoral?

 

[McBell]

defense of self is breaking the/a law?

when a cop breaks the speed limit in his cruiser and chasing a criminal, it is immoral? when a person is hungry and they steal, it's immoral?

It is not as simple as that.
The answer can be either yes or no, depending upon the specific circumstances of each situation.

 

[Fool]

It is not as simple as that.
The answer can be either yes or no, depending upon the specific circumstances of each situation.

so we need to look at the issue on a case by case situation.

 

[McBell]

so we need to look at the issue on a case by case situation.

Yes,
Just like with legality, morality lies in the specifics.

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Can one follow the letter of the Law and still fail morally?

As both legality and morality are arbitrary, there is no guarantee of overlap.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Can one follow the letter of the Law and still fail morally?

Yes.

However, the fact that this can be true doesn't mean it is always (or even commonly) true.

 

[Father Heathen]

Can one follow the letter of the Law and still fail morally?

Sure. Not all things that we might consider "immoral" are illegal.