Should one obey moral laws or legal laws?

which law is important?

IT seems in the court room, if you did a good moral action, they will fine and find you guilty because of the legal laws that were written.
Yet, if you obey legal laws, it seems one’s liberty is restricted to the extreme, there is no room for morality.

Or should just obey legal laws, when one has the chance not to get caught.
And obey moral laws, when people can praise you?

You know what? Laws really piss me off. I heard this the other day that got me thinking… “Laws, there never was one that wasn’t broken”. Now think about that. Really think about it. It’s true. But what does that mean? I’m going to explain what it means to me.

We live in a three dimensional world which by its nature involves duality. That’s why it appears that there is a right and wrong. There is, however, no such thing as right and wrong. It was just invented by someone a long time ago. Think about quantum physics. All that exists and all that does not exist is actually the same thing. At the subatomic level everything (and this is my basic understanding) is merely energy which, according to the First Law of Thermodynamics, can neither be created nor destroyed. In this sense, everything, everyone, every table every chair, every cloud, every photo, every thought, every empty space is one and the same. All is one.

Now you are entitled to your own speculations about the universe and the point of our existence, but indulge me mine. I believe that the only reason that humankind exists is to experience. It doesn’t matter what or how or when, all the details are irrelevant. Humans exist as a kind of experiment for all that is to experience itself subjectively. If everything is one thing, how could one possibly know what one is, unless one was able to “separate” from the rest of everything and look back on oneself? Now i’m talking figuratively, for if all that is and all that isn’t is just energy and we are all one, how could we possibly detatch or separate? That’s the trick, we just trick ourselves to “think” we’re separate… separate from all that is, from the source, from the universe, from God. That’s why we are here living in this three-dimensional world, a world of limitation, a world of separation from the truth of who we are… all we are… all that is. We agreed to this on some level, as a way to make sure that we would fully experience our separateness from all that is. So, we are here to just experience whatever there is to experience, whether its experiencing what its like to miss a bus, experiencing what its like to be a single mum, experiencing what its like to receive a gift or get 85% on a school project or … you get my point. Every day we are here is just to experience whatever there is.

But what does that have to do with the Law? Well it has to do with everyone’s individual choices. See if i’m here to experience anything and everything, then what I choose to experience is my choice. (That’s what God was talking about in the bible I reckon… that “Free Will” thing). What right does any other person, institution or any “God” have to tell me what to experience? None. That’s my beef with Christianity (i don’t know too much about other religions I must admit). Why do Christians say God gave us “free will” but yet there are things that you should or shouldn’t do that will get you to heaven? I don’t need to diss Christianity, everyone knows its got some major problems. Anyway, back to my point. No other being on the earth or elsewhere has the right to tell me what I should experience or not. That’s why Laws are bogus.

“But what about killing people? How can you say that’s not wrong?” I know, I can hear your questions already. Notice I said “no other being”. There is one being that can tell you what is right and wrong. It’s you. You see even though there is no right and wrong, there IS a right and wrong (because of the duality of our dimension) that exists in you. You decide what is right and wrong for you. How do you do that? Well, you FEEL it. A good way to decide the way you feel about something is to ask how you would feel if it were done to you… “do unto others” ring any bells? So in regards to killing people… hmm, how would I feel if I were murdered by someone? Well i’d be pissed off that someone ended my life when that’s not what I had decided I wanted. So do I think murder is right? Not for me. I won’t do it. Same goes with a whole range of other things. You decide what is right for you by seeing if it feels good to you. Sometimes your feelings may not be the same as those of other people. Take sex. If you feel good having sex with alot of people and it makes you happy and you love it, do it, have fun! If you don’t feel like having sex with lots of people, or before marriage, or with people of the opposite sex, don’t do it. Have fun not doing something and doing something else!! Just do what makes you happy, that is what is right for you. So you see that Laws are just people (or society or whatever you call it) impinging on your right to experience. There are so many issues where this kind of logic is applicable… drugs, slavery, different religions, abortion… the list is endless. Just do what you want to do, and let everyone else do what they want to do.
In my ideal world, children would develop such a strong sense of their own right and wrong that Laws would be unnecessary because people would grow up taking responsibility for everything they do rather than passing the buck to the government, the Law or religion. If there were no laws there would be no crime. That would mean you could do whatever you wanted. That is freedom. That is free-will. That is what everything is all about.

The funny thing is, it doesn’t have to be “my ideal world”. Everything has to do with our inherent belief that there isn’t enough for everyone. Scarcity. It dominates free-market economics, international politics, environmental issues. Everyone is sure that there isn’t enough for everyone, that’s why we fight over everything (an “i gotta get some” mentality). Just stop and imagine that everyone in the world could have anything and everything they ever wanted. A world where abundance was abundant (!) and no one ever lacked anything they wanted. Could that be our world? Yes it could. I urge you to research Zero Point Energy/Free Energy or the Disclosure Project on the internet… we possess the technology to make energy free. Think how that could not only solve our environmental problems but destroy scarcity on this planet along with the “i gotta get some” mentality. If everything was free why would we fight? We wouldn’t. A peaceful existence among humankind is so possible.

Sorry for going on such a rant! I just reckon laws are wrong.

Laws often make good guidelines, so that you don’t have to be constantly thinking about the “whys” of every little thing simply to work and play well with others.

Nevertheless, sometimes there are legal laws that, though they violate no one’s rights, are in conflict with one’s personal morals or social ethics. Then there is value in choosing your battles.

But if a legal law or even a more or ethic violates a right, then it is best to fight either the legal law, the more or ethic, or both.

Rights trump rights-violating legal laws every time, and by standing up for that reality we make progress toward a more neuropsychologically healthy geopolitical-socioeconomic system.

Rights also trump rights-violating morals and ethics (trumping what is known as the dysfunction of moral relativism) every time, and by standing up for that reality we make progress toward a more neuropsychologically healthy social-interpersonal way of life.

I doubt this, I think it was the feeling , and someone who is scientific and good with communication turn it to a form and easy to understand.

The feeling. Like monkeys or gorillas, they were never told to obey the leader, they just do, fear.


Obey them if they make sense (or if you just don’t want to go to jail).

Pot smoking is an oft-used example of a law that people break because they consider the law morally wrong (and the risk of going to jail is acceptable).

Although we’ve pretty much proved that the majority of folks will dis-obey their own moral laws (and the legal ones also) if they are told “don’t worry, you won’t be held responsible”:


I disagree with the use of the term “law” as it is commonly used today. Legality is a concept seriously different from natural law. Law is a social construct, and doesn’t appeal to anything universal. Natural law is the observable universe “like it or not.”

I believe this illustrates the difference between morality and legality. Morality is the basis of intrinsic OUGHTS founded on the observations of natural law. The “Should” based on “what is” (if such a thing exists).

LEGALITY is a construct implemented by dominating figures. By itself, nothing more than the written extension of empiricism. There is very little difference between a bank robber telling you to stay quiet as opposed to a congressman telling you to not rob banks. Either one is carrying authority on their own regard. You’re only left to question which one is going to be more successful in their demands.

In theory, legality is a construct created to uphold morality. Obeying the law does not automatically make you moral, but a moral society is dependant on the law being enforced.

I believe that we’re all criminals. And at some point or another we felt that abiding by certain laws was not a moral thing to do. Of course, many laws are created as a breach of other laws anyhow.

Portent: Laws are not morals. But breaking the law is of little use without good support and some reason.

Would it be immoral if you were to break a law?
Would you not oney an unjust unitl it is changed, but still follow your judgment.

The definition of civil disobedience.
Where martin Luther king who obey and respect the law, but at the same time follow his own judgment where segregation is wrong.

Martin Luther King Jr.

Of course there is, as you go on to point out when you write:

Just becasue people tend to interpret the world in different ways and place emphasis on different things does not meant that the variances between peoples interpretations means there is no right or wrong.

If murder is right for me, is is right? Absolutely not. There are foundational rights and wrongs. Humanity just has a hard time with figuring them out, especially in this wishy-washy time of political correctness.

NO! Breaking the law can not be classified as illegal.
Morality and legality are different ‘dimensions’ of social life.
Best example is Antigone. Laws can be immoral.
For recent examples see racial segregation.

Not to be contrary but,

Yes. If the laws do not contravene your moral standards then it is immoral to break them. Just because some laws may be immoral, such as the Jim Crow laws were, it doesn’t mean that morals and legality are forever separated.

All these supreme court judges.
we should just adopt a new policy regime.

I heard, it is the judges who mades laws, applies them, and give their judgments , where the legaislatures are vulnerable. Separation of powers is imbalance.

Give me a better one!
Can anyone explain it to me how and why a pile of lawyers would come up with something illegal?

It is not the fault of the Supremes that ‘Our Leader’ conduct his business by illegal means.

We should adopt a new policy regime!
No new law will take effect without court approval.
It is embarrassing to have judges correct our legislators and the president.