Outlaw Morality

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Arditezza, Aug 11, 2004.

  1. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    What do people here think of the outlaw? The one who turns the tables on society and shakes the justice system at it's core. The man who breaks ridiculous laws to bring attention to them. I am not talking about men who commit crimes, or are criminals but the ones who go against laws that are not morally just? Ones who challenge the system to improve it? Are they heroes, or just criminals looking for fame?

    Keep in mind I am also not speaking of Vigilantes', as they are just victims of crime serving up their form of justice and vengence. I'm also not talking about mass amounts of people (Like PETA and Greenpeace) who think they are martyrs but are really just people with nothing better to do then to find some cause to justify their meager existance. Any victim is automatically disqualified from being an outlaw, because their purpose is singular instead of multi-faceted. I'm really talking about people who anonymously challenge the written law to overturn laws that are either poorly implemented, poorly designed, or are morally flawed at the core. I am talking about people who just want to see right done, not for religion, not for themselves, not for politics, or their nation, or for any purpose other than to set things right. Are there people like that in todays world, and are they really heroes?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    Can you list some examples from history -- so that we can get a better picture of what type of outlaw do you mean?

    Also, what is your definition of "hero" here?
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. I would support a vigilante out for revenge or a swordfish type operation. I would not support some punk going around trying to mess with the system just because it is messed is wrong. That is the last thing that society needs.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Arditezza Banned Banned

    Messages:
    624
    So, society needs more people seeking revenge, and less people trying to make things right for all people? Where is the logic in that?

    And Rosa, The one that springs to mind immediately is Nelson Mendela. Most of the type of people I am talking about are less known because they are not in it for themselves.
     
  8. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    This immediately reminds me of hackers. Of course, they have very different motives for what they are doing -- from stealing money to hacking as a matter of creative challenge.

    A while back, there was a case in my country (Slovenia, Europe), where a guy broke into the system of a bank to prove it is not safe, and that clients are at hazard using that online interface -- and he notified the media of his discovery. The bank sued him, as he was alledgedly using inside information, and that his real motive was to steal money. He denied, and the case is still at court, I think -- it was all hushed up pretty soon.

    So, is this man someone one should look up to or not?

    Considering the way it all ended (at court), one is hardly encouraged to do such things oneself, even though the inner imperative says "Do not bear this injustice! Do something about it!"

    It doesn't seem worth to risk one's head this way.
     
  9. I would rather deal with bat man than a disgruntled hacker any day. If the individual had just sent the bank president an e-mail saying that his system was not safe instead of publishing the security flaw in the paper, he would have gotten better results.
     
  10. water the sea Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,442
    There you have the man, right here: Spuriousmonkey, in The 1st annual best Awards thread, Award thread:


     
  11. coolsoldier Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    So-called "civil disobedience" is justified in my opinion in any case where (a) the law is inequitable, unjust, overbearing or fundamentally flawed, and (b) the people in power (even if the people in power are a majority of the population) refuse to change or rationally justify the inequity.

    In other words, when there is a fundamental problem with the law, people should stick to debate until the supporters of the law can no longer justify it rationally. If your position can't be argued to that point, than the law is probably not as unjust as you think it is. If the supporters of the law can't make a rational case for the law, but still refuse to change it, then is the only time for civil disobedience.

    An interesting point-counterpoint on this issue is available at http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/writing/civ-dis.htm
     

Share This Page