By which I mean civil disobedience, the act of deliberately breaking the law in order to change a law, or even just to advance a principle.
One of the most famous acts of civil disobedience was the Boston Tea Party but more recently the largest civil disobedience in Canada occurred when 200 people protested against the Keystone pipeline.
Is it justifiable to break the law in order to change the law?
Actually, I think that there are some cases where you are (ironically) legally required to break the law.
For instance, during the Nazi War Crime trials, people were found guilty of war crimes for obeying Nazi orders (obviously, it was illegal to disobey Nazi officials). Laws are subjective to the people currently in power- obedience won't be seen by everyone as a good thing.
Another Nazi example would be cases of people hiding Jews in their homes. It was strictly illegal to do so, but these "delinquents" are now seen as heroes. I personally think that you have a moral obligation to break these sort of laws.
More than happy to do some reading (when I've finished with Homer) so go ahead... give me examples.
WE, by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Its the book that George Orwell blatantly ripped off to write 1984, and that basically every other dystopian novel has been based on. So it is worth a read.
I would disagree since technically it was not a ''law'' in Mayan society, but a tenet of religion, which are different things, even in a society where religion permeated the citizens' lives more than today. Mayan society had its own judicial system, with various punishments such as jail or slavery or property confiscation.
Sacrifice as you described however, was considered as a religious ritual, and not a punishment under the law.
True, it is a tenet of religion for the ancient Mayans. However I wasn't using this Mayan tradition as law. I cited this as an example using today's modern laws. If this practice occurred today, no one could justify that their religious practices outweigh the right of the people who would be sacrificed to live.
Maybe a better example would be this: What if I say that I had a vision that I should create a religion that overemphasizes the value of sports and the losers of the sport would be put to death because they are weaker than the others? Would anyone say that this "religion's" practices should be allowed? Of course not.
This is why I say that some laws will have to be kept in place to protect the liberty's of society. The state still has enough compelling interest to refrain from repealing a law that would hamper either of these "religious" practices.
WE, by Yevgeny Zamyatin. Its the book that George Orwell blatantly ripped off to write 1984, and that basically every other dystopian novel has been based on. So it is worth a read.
lol, that's what I was about to post before I had to go to work yesterday.
Another Nazi example would be cases of people hiding Jews in their homes. It was strictly illegal to do so, but these "delinquents" are now seen as heroes. I personally think that you have a moral obligation to break these sort of laws.
but not everyone has this moral obligation, some blindly follow the law, and even support it, but some break these laws because they can see a way that overturning such laws will benefit them, economically or any other way. it is rather safe to say that some companies lobby for the appeals to such laws because without it, they can make a profit. not for what they believe, but for what they stand to gain.
i don't agree with that if a reiligion says kill a person every day for a year which means you are some sick **** to do that. I think if you break a law reiciving an abducted friend or killing a rapist then by all means break the law or if it's something wrong for a law like SEGREGATION then BREAK THE LAW and protest do what ever is nescary to get rid of that law
