[WoadWarrior]

Yep... I'm proposing another prepper morality question: Just because something is illegal, does that make it wrong?

For example, it's illegal to concealed carry without a permit.... but is it wrong? That ties into the dilemma of "I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6." As preppers, we are preparing for any contingency... and realize that the laws and rules of today don't apply in a real world post event situation (the recent power-station thread back and forth should emphasize my point).

I'm sure we would all agree that scavenging a home right now would be both wrong and illegal. But... in a SHTF situation one could argue the rule of law no longer applies because 1) the cops are all home protecting their families and 2) the entire population is technically under duress.... So... post-SHTF, you run across an abandoned Wal-mart, power station, govt office, house, etc.... it's still technically illegal to scavenge... but is it wrong? Now... up the ante... the owner of a grocery store is standing on the roof with a shotgun... defending his stuff. You... your family... and the rest of your group are starving. It's technically illegal to shoot him and take some food.... but is it wrong? When does our civilized morality change and the end justify the means?

I only propose this because we live in the opposite mentality every day in or normal lives... we make something legal and assume it's right.

I think Walter Williams summed it up best: "How does something immoral, when done privately, become moral when it is done collectively? Furthermore, does legality establish morality? Slavery was legal; apartheid is legal; Stalinist, Nazi, and Maoist purges were legal. Clearly, the fact of legality does not justify these crimes. Legality, alone, cannot be the talisman of moral people."

So... back to the original question... does duress (e.g., your starving child) justify any actions you take to get food for him/her? Where, as preppers, do we draw the line? Or do we?

 

[Fuzzee]

Something is only both illegal and morally wrong if you feel wholeheartly that the lawmakers are both infallible morally and a 100% for the freedom and good of people with no corruption.

Otherwise no. Not feeling that way myself and seeing the state of our country, I feel it's just an amount of time before normally law abiding people will have no choice but to break the law.

 

[badey]

I think legality and morality are not necessarily the same thing.

Some things that are immoral by my standards are legal (e.g., abortion, charging excessive interest). Some things that are moral by my standards are illegal (e.g., concealed carry in IL).

I think that while we are able to, we should try to live both morally and legally. It does us no good to break the law, even though it may not be immoral, if it winds up landing us in jail. If someone is prepping to survive when the SHTF for himself or his family, he is not doing himself any favors by putting himself in a legally precarious position.

Also, while I wouldn't blame anyone for stealing food to feed starving children, it still boils down to the fact that he is morally responsible, because he did not prep well enough when he could have...

However, if the government passes a law that you truly feel is immoral and unable to be obeyed, I think you are obligated to not follow it. It would take a very extreme law for my criteria to be satisfied though.

 

[Lucky Jim]

..the owner of a grocery store is standing on the roof with a shotgun... defending his stuff. You... your family... and the rest of your group are starving. It's technically illegal to shoot him and take some food.... but is it wrong? When does our civilized morality change and the end justify the means?..

Depends on the severity and type of the SHTF and whether it's likely to last short or longterm, we'll just have to call the plays as we see fit.
For example King John passed a law banning ordinary folk from killing and eating "his" deer in Sherwood, but Robin Hood and his mates said "F*** you Jack!" and arrowed all the deer they wanted..

Here are some "moral dilemma" clips from Survivors 1975 (a plague has wiped out nearly everybody on earth)-

1- A petty tyrant called Brod (Brian Blessed) is keeping a group prisoner, are they "legally" entitled to kill him to escape? (pick up the action at 2:50)-

2- Are the group "legally" entitled to help themseves at a derelict supermarket, or leave it to the rats? (6:20)-

3- Are the group "legally" entitled to execute somebody who they think is a murderer? (It starts with them taking a vote on whether to kill him or banish him)-

 

[Leon]

Something is only both illegal and morally wrong if you feel wholeheartly that the lawmakers are both infallible morally and a 100% for the freedom and good of people with no corruption.

Otherwise no. Not feeling that way myself and seeing the state of our country, I feel it's just an amount of time before normally law abiding people will have no choice but to break the law.

Truer words are rarely spoken. Me? I currently make a point of disobeying any law that isn't in the constitution. I regularly trespass on supposedly 'private' public works land because I know that when the cops get there, that is IF someone cared at all, the only thing they could do because of a supreme court ruling is ASK me politely to leave. And I am free to come back after they leave as many times as I like. I tear the tags off mattresses. I refuse to talk to census workers. I run red lights when cop cars aren't around. I roll through stop signs. I water my lawn on even numbered days. I even throw the recyclables in with the regular trash and snigger maniacally while doing it. :shock: As far as I am concerned and as far as I can tell legally, the constitution supersedes and preempts any other law as the supreme and undeniable law of this land. So what if the ass backward state of GA tells me they got a law that says I can't grow tobacco without paying a bond? What uncle Sam don't know can't hurt him. Been that way a looooong time for me and I never so much as had a traffic ticket. I know it is the duty of every citizen to disregard and ignore any law that is not just AND constitutional AND practical / successful. What the communist in chief and his satan worshiping ilk are trying to do is legislate a net of laws so vague and broad that anyone can get arrested and made a felon for anything they do in their daily lives. It's our duty to disrespect and disregard these draconian laws that were never intended for America.

Founding fathers, baby. 1776 all the way

 

[shotlady]

i dont know i tend to not make any waves. if it was long term shtf. we'd all be different people in different land, just trying to survive. i would hope i do everything morally/ethically/legally right.
and those arent always the same. i dont have an honest answer. but one thing i can tell you i hope i never find out.

 

[fedorthedog]

Morals are a societal belief, cannibals thought they were morally and legally correct. When there is no society there is no law and property rights are what you can claim and control.

 

[Denton]

They tell you that it is not possible to legislate morality, but that is not true. That is exactly what a law is!

Think about it. Leon runs red lights whenever the cops are not around. Is it inherent not to run that light? Of course not. it is a commercial code. It is not part of your divine engineering to know that the red light dangling in the middle of the intersection means you must stop.

On the other hand, we all know theft, murder, rape, etc. are not only illegal but immoral. Morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That is the fundamental teaching of Christianity, other than salvation through the blood of Christ.

Beyond that, we have standards of morality that is a matter of societal health, although these mores and norms may not be a matter of legality. For example, while homosexuality and adultery might not be illegal, we know they are wrong and are unhealthy for a society that wants to stand the test of time.

Common sense will lead the wise. Can you break the glass and retrieve a candy bar from that machine when the crap is being spread by the fan? Sure. There'll be nobody who is going to profit from the machine, anymore. Can you kill someone in order to take their candy? Of course not.

 

[fedorthedog]

Heres a question for you if rape is wrong why did god make it so a man can rape a woman, I am certain he could have found a way for reproduction to occur where rape would not be possible.

The answer perpetuation of the species must occur no matter how.

 

[inceptor]

Heres a question for you if rape is wrong why did god make it so a man can rape a woman, I am certain he could have found a way for reproduction to occur where rape would not be possible.

The answer perpetuation of the species must occur no matter how.

Some may be able to do that. I personally can't. Flat out, it's wrong. When God said be fruitful and multiply, he stated that to partners. He failed to say, "if you want it, go for it". Rape is not for anything other than personal pleasure.

 

[WoadWarrior]

Let's add fuel to the fire and hear what the Supreme Court has to say... (Yes... I have a background in criminal law... I'm geeky that way.)

From the 16th American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177:

“The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and any statute, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment , and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it. As unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it…

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law. Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.”

Any court, government or government officer who acts in violation of, in opposition or contradiction to the foregoing, by his, or her, own actions, commits treason and invokes the self-executing Sections 3 and 4 of the 14th Amendment and vacates his, or her, office. It is the duty of every lawful American Citizen to oppose all enemies of this Nation, foreign and DOMESTIC.

 

[Medelwr]

When it comes down to it, might makes right. Every law has probably been made that way. I don't just mean physical might but also might through numbers too. Think of it, if a SHTF scenario happened, I'm sure we'd keep some laws such as cold blooded murder and the right to defend your property but I'm also sure that a lot of them would just fly right out the window (think of jay walking ). Laws are just extensions of the results of war....so when it all comes down to it stand by your morals more than the old laws.

 

[Denton]

Heres a question for you if rape is wrong why did god make it so a man can rape a woman, I am certain he could have found a way for reproduction to occur where rape would not be possible.

The answer perpetuation of the species must occur no matter how.

We are not animals. That rape is possible does not make it moral. Murder is also possible as well as theft. That they are possible does not make them moral.

You did not ask a question, you allowed insight into your mind. I didn't like it, to be honest.

 

[Denton]

When it comes down to it, might makes right. Every law has probably been made that way. I don't just mean physical might but also might through numbers too. Think of it, if a SHTF scenario happened, I'm sure we'd keep some laws such as cold blooded murder and the right to defend your property but I'm also sure that a lot of them would just fly right out the window (think of jay walking ). Laws are just extensions of the results of war....so when it all comes down to it stand by your morals more than the old laws.

"Might makes right" is a catchy slogan used by those who prefer democracy or brute capability over law - or G-d, who is the author of true law.
You say we. We will keep...
If there is a we, there is no reason to not keep law. If there is merely a you, there is no reason to behave like an animal. You are still a creation of G-d, and the laws of nature and nature's G-d as mentioned in our Declaration of Independence is the same.

If you want to act like an animal just because the lights go out for an extended period of time, there is a good chance you will be taken down just like any other wild animal.

 

[Medelwr]

"Might makes right" is a catchy slogan used by those who prefer democracy or brute capability over law - or G-d, who is the author of true law.
You say we. We will keep...
If there is a we, there is no reason to not keep law. If there is merely a you, there is no reason to behave like an animal. You are still a creation of G-d, and the laws of nature and nature's G-d as mentioned in our Declaration of Independence is the same.

If you want to act like an animal just because the lights go out for an extended period of time, there is a good chance you will be taken down just like any other wild animal.

I agree with you saying that there is no reason to act like an animal, my morals wouldn't allow me to act like some out there that would be willing to rape a woman just to propagate the species. I maintain though that our laws have only come into being because there was a whole whack of people out there willing to band up and set their ideals as something to live by.

I was postulating that in a SHTF situation and (I guess I didn't make myself too clear) society as we know it was NOT coming back, then those who come to power and create new laws will inevitably be those we consider strong. It has been that way all through history and still to this day is happening and will only be too true with no government to rule.

I don't condone idiots who are willing to destroy others' lives for sh*ts and giggles and my morals wouldn't allow me to join them or even let them continue unabated. My morals are not based in religion either since I don't prescribe to any theology but are based on my empathy (I was raised in a Christian society so I do have a "do unto others as you would done unto you" view in life). My reasoning on my whole post is if there were no longer a society to keep law so I keep mentioning "we" because I would do my very best to bring order into the chaos around me, I would be willing to stand up and be one of the strong ones trying to help those around me.

Don't forget that not every country out there has the same religion or has a Declaration of Independence. Canada has more immigrants than natural born citizens and is home to many many religions. It would be unfeasible for me to think that in a time when SHTF that the laws I am used to would continue (especially while I live in a city that is mostly people from Hinduism and Islam).

 

[inceptor]

We are not animals. That rape is possible does not make it moral. Murder is also possible as well as theft. That they are possible does not make them moral.

You did not ask a question, you allowed insight into your mind. I didn't like it, to be honest.

I agree.

I have seen both sides of the fence. I was very young and stupid then and did not like what I did or saw. I got out. I like this side better. I have a conscious and I can sleep at night. To me doing the right thing is not because it's the law, it's because of respect. Respect for myself and others. What goes around, comes around.

Would I hesitate to protect my family? Absolutely not. I would take out the gangbangers/raiders in a heartbeat. My family is worth more than the life of a raider. Would I kill for any other reason? Don't think I could do it. It's because of my morals, my beliefs and my relationship with God. The actual translation of one of the 10 Commandments is not Thou Shall Not Kill, it's Thou Shall Not Murder. I will not take a life because I choose who lives or dies, I will only do it for self defense.

Don't get me wrong, I am a capitalist at heart. I have had my own business in the past and maybe will again. But greed is what got us in this mess in the first place. Greed and selfishness. Taking what you want regardless if you need it is about both. What you brought up is both. I will not take something from someone because I want it. If it's something that is abandoned, that's a different story.

 

[Denton]

To MedelwrYes, your notion of right and wrong is based on religion. You said it, yourself.
Western civilization is based on that same religion, as a matter of fact. That is why we are different than, say, Saudi Arabia. Were you born in Medina, your notions about gender equality, for example, would be very different.

If you live in a Muslim enclave of Canada, guess who will set the norms, mores and taboos for you? You'd better hope you are in a Christian area. We're pretty tolerant people. We are so tolerant we even let other people in so they can take over.

 

[Medelwr]

Yes, your notion of right and wrong is based on religion. You said it, yourself.
Western civilization is based on that same religion, as a matter of fact. That is why we are different than, say, Saudi Arabia. Were you born in Medina, your notions about gender equality, for example, would be very different.

If you live in a Muslim enclave of Canada, guess who will set the norms, mores and taboos for you? You'd better hope you are in a Christian area. We're pretty tolerant people. We are so tolerant we even let other people in so they can take over.

No, I'm scrwed. I'm a typical Caucasian so I'd have to hope that enough people who live locally around here have similar morals......or book it!

 

[Denton]

Inceptor, glad to see you switched sides.

By the way, there is no reason to hesitate if confronted by gangs or individuals. There is nothing immoral about dropping someone who is threatening you and your family. Matter of fact, if you extend your umbrella to others around you such as neighbors or strangers, you are acting in a selfless manner. Those who die in the act of attacking others have nobody to blame but themselves.
That goes back to common law and the laws of nature and nature's G-d that is at the foundation of common law.

 

[Denton]

No, I'm scrwed. I'm a typical Caucasian so I'd have to hope that enough people who live locally around here have similar morals......or book it!

Come on down here to Alabama. We are typical and normal, we have a lot of fresh water sources, a lot of fishing area, plenty of small game and a lot of us who bristle at the thought of tyranny.