When is it morally ok to break the law?

Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?

In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? and 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience? For some examples, take a look at the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience.

Any law that goes beyond protecting our individual rights is an unjust law and should not be obeyed. In other words, laws should never violate people's rights to life, liberty and property. Laws should exist for the sole purpose of protecting life, liberty and property.We are born with these rights whether government exists or not. In fact, we form government so we can, as a collective force, protect these rights.

I would agree with St.Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all.” An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: "an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” There is no doubt that laws are made for a reason and the laws of a society reflect the values of that society because of tradition, necessity, and expectation. But occasionally there will be a law, which is unjust and wrong though not for everyone,but for a group of people. If the law contradicts with their high morals or religion, I believe it is right for them to protest against it in a reasonable way.

For example, it is a fact , that in some countries government is and has been very corrupt. Just few people are very rich, majority of the public is very poor. It is not right to disobey an unjust law for just personal convenience. People should look at the alternatives, weigh them against what their personal beliefs are, and then make a judgment based on their individual moral values.

Mill or Marx?

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices. What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

 Marx's argument is somewhat agreeable also because sometimes the government make us pay for their mistakes, so Marx argument protects us from the government forcing economic choices and insure us that the choices we are making are in fact our own.  Mill's argument is agreeable to an extent because we need some freedom from the state in some of the things we do, not all. For example if the state did not make people pay their taxes then most of them wouldn't but because we are forced to we do.In essences I agree with both of them,but I feel like I said with Marxs now in the sense that he wants more to protect us from government for our own well being.

Buddhism

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I think that it is possible to live in today’s times in the USA according to this Buddhism teaching. We used to live thinking about tomorrow, our future, desires. Desires are part of our lives. We can survive because of them. It is almost impossible to detach it. It is hard to give up. There is always something that we are bared from. We try to reach our goals because of our concerns and desires. I mean I fully believe that if you want to detach from something to better yourself you can. For example many people try and stop bad habits and create new and healthy ones. I feel like this is a part of breaking for a desire that is part of your daily life like smoking or eating unhealthy, and changing that energy into doing something healthy like exercise or something positive to show restraint against that desire.

In today times I feel everything is about the physical appears, money materialistic things etc. Everybody thinks how to make more money, feed the family, pay bills, having things they want and not need and etc. Everybody desires to gain wealth, fame, power, stature, acceptance, cars, houses, contentment, without desire nothing can't be accomplished. I have a personal experience with this because I was heavy my whole life, and I never wanted to give up my selfish desire or the comfort of food until one day I was fed up and my desire to be healthy overcame it all ,and now I love to work out and be active my perspective tonally changed because my desire did.

Cosmological and Design Argument

Cosmological and Design Argument

This week, we are focusing on the Cosmological argument and the Design argument. These arguments represent how one can think about religion from a philosophical perspective.

In your blog, I would like you to reflect more generally on what, if anything, you think philosophy might contribute to the understanding of religion. Think about i) whether you think these arguments might change someone's religious convictions, and ii) whether there is anything about religious experience that is left out of these arguments (for example, some people might say that faith is important for religious conviction, yet of course faith has no role in philosophical argument).

The debate then focuses on two points: first, whether the PSR in question is true, and second, whether the explanation must involve God or at least some God-like being.I feel that many people have struggled for very many years to understand what religious ideas and experiences mean or do not mean. People believe many different things about God, with some saying they do not believe at all. How can we know God? If He is ineffable or indescribable, then how is it that people have sought to give accounts of Him within religious texts throughout the years? To some, God is even too holy to be named; and perhaps He is beyond human language and its limits? Others suggest that God could be known from His effects, hence talk of His being all-powerful, just, all knowing, as well as the converse of these. I believe that philosophy can help to answer these questions, and I will say that some of philosophical arguments, such as Cosmological argument and the Design argument may change someone's religious convictions. I mean I have even struggled with the thought ;Who is God? What classifies as religion? Why? All the questions that come up, but also I was raise in a Baptist household, so there was no questions allowed to be asked, or any doubts aloud. As I have grow older all of these questions come in to play ,and everything I learned as a child and teen now comes into question.