State Of the Union

[Lt. Fred]

Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Again it depends on the situation but sometimes I think it is necessary for goverment to break the law to serve the public interest.  You can never foresee every situation when writing a law.

Any law?

[m52nickerson]

Let's talk about something substantive. Do you think it is immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

Again it depends on the situation but sometimes I think it is necessary for goverment to break the law to serve the public interest.  You can never foresee every situation when writing a law.

Any law?

Most likely.  For just about any law a person can think of a reason it would make sense to break it.  Laws are not perfect if for no other reason than the people that write them are not perfect.

[Lt. Fred]

I'll ask again: do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I'll ask again: do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full.

He just answered you. Back off.

[Lt. Fred]

I have two problems with his current response: firstly, that I feel he's largely ignored the substantive point (morality) in order to hammer on nonsense again (can it be done). Also, he's said that he considers some exceptions to be acceptable, but hasn't enumerated them. I want a list. I also want to talk about substance, not nonsense.

[Witchyjoshy]

No.

He answered your question.  In full.  On the other hand, you've been very, very selectively ignoring many many things, from many people here.

Back off.  I've had enough of you intentionally misinterpreting other people's posts, and taking them out of context, to suit your own agenda.

[Osama bin Bambi]

I have two problems with his current response: firstly, that I feel he's largely ignored the substantive point (morality) in order to hammer on nonsense again (can it be done). Also, he's said that he considers some exceptions to be acceptable, but hasn't enumerated them. I want a list. I also want to talk about substance, not nonsense.

You specifically asked m52 if he believed it was immoral for the government to break the law in the public interest?

m52 responded that when evaluating the morality of such an action, it must be taken on a case-by-case basis (hence his comment about exceptions). When he wrote that it can be "necessary" to break the law in some situations, he was speaking of not just practical necessity, but moral necessity, because the debate assumes that the practical and moral purpose of government is to protect its citizens. This is an unquestionably valid response.

You then asked specifically if the government could break "any law" in the interest of protecting the public. While this is arguably just a rephrasing of the original question, m52 answered it anyway, saying that it was "most likely" that for each law there would be "reasons why it would make sense to break it." In other words, it is most likely true that for every law there is a hypothetical situation where it is more moral to break the law than to follow it.

I find nothing wrong with m52's responses, but I would ask you to please reevaluate your reading comprehension.

[Lt. Fred]

Okay, I'll modify my question:

Do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full. Also, if there are any conditions under which laws should not be broken (where the government argues that doing so is in the public interest) give them in full, or a reasonable summary (three would do, I think).

[ironbite]

STOP ASKING THE SAME QUESTION DIFFERENT WAYS!

Ironbite-jesus christ.

[Osama bin Bambi]

Okay, I'll modify my question:

Do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full. Also, if there are any conditions under which laws should not be broken (where the government argues that doing so is in the public interest) give them in full, or a reasonable summary (three would do, I think).

You are simply restating the same question because you don't like m52's answer. Knock it off and move on.

Also, you can't possibly expect someone to list every single law and think of a situation where it is moral to break it. Be reasonable and specific.

[m52nickerson]

Okay, I'll modify my question:

Do you think it is moral for the government to break any law if it argues that doing so serves the public interest? If there are exceptions, give them in full. Also, if there are any conditions under which laws should not be broken (where the government argues that doing so is in the public interest) give them in full, or a reasonable summary (three would do, I think).

Again it depends on the situation.  The actual situation and not just what the government says.  So you could have a case where it seems like there is a moral justification but as more information comes out that justifications goes away.

In a country like the US where the people pick the leaders there has to exist some type of trust in those leader to make such calls and give the people know as much information as they can.

As for you requests for lists you will have to narrow it down to a specific set of laws or situations.  Even then it will be hard to make any set in stone rules.  Welcome to the world, nothing is black and white.

[rookie]

Fred, you're going somewhere with your line of questioning. You've been here too long for most of us not to realize that. So let me ask you this. What law are you thinking of where there would be no moral reason to ever break regardless of any hypothetical circumstances?