A man’s fight against the laws of the American Food and Drug Administration to save AIDS patients. Dallas Buyers Club is a movie directed by Jean Marc Vallée, which illustrates a minority’s struggle to access illegal, but non-toxic drugs that improve significantly their health. This raises the following moral dilemma: Can it ever be considered morally permissible to break the law? Given the moral implications, it is morally permissible to break the law when certain conditions are met.
It is morally permissible to do an illegal act if the action is morally right and good. An action could be morally right and illegal at the same time, when it represents the lesser of two evils, or when the intentions of the person performing it are noble and have for goal to achieve his duty. An action can be morally right, but still illegal because in a situation where there is no good option, the lesser of two evils is the morally best option to do, even if it is illegal (Thomson 39). For example, in Dallas Buyers Club, Ron Woodroof acted rightly by choosing the lesser of two evils: sell illegal drugs to help AIDS patients feel better and live longer, instead of letting them suffer and die (Dallas Buyers Club). If he would have chosen to obey the law, a great number of AIDS patient would have suffered more and died of their illness, and he would have been guilty of not helping them according to the Harming by Omission Thesis (HOT) and the Equivalence of Evil Thesis (EET) (Mieth 17). These thesis affirm that omitting to help someone in need would be as bad as hurting the person directly. Thus, Woodroof acted in a morally permissible way even if he broke the law because he chose the lesser of two evils (Matheny 16). Also, someone can act justly e...
... middle of paper ...
...r the minority according to Mill (Falikowski 79, 80). Thus, the interests or moral principles of a minority could be ignored, since they are a minority, even if they are important. For example, the AIDS patients were a minority in society, so their interests were not considered in laws about drugs (Dallas Buyers Club). Hence, if the laws do not evolve fast enough, they could interfere with people’s natural rights; they could become unjust, will be out-dated, and not consider the interests of the minorities.
To conclude, it is morally permissible to break the laws when it is morally right to do so, the law is unjust or out-dated. It is true that laws reflect what the society thinks, but this rule of majority could repress and tyrannize the interests of the minorities, such as AIDS patients. Thus, it is morally permissible to break the law under certain conditions.
... democracies, minority groups interest are not just dismissed but are actually compromised. They are compromised by legislature placing regulations on certain interest.
...ection against the government. Others believe that courts must be more active and open to expand the ideas of liberty even if it is required to strike down the majoritarian law in order to protect the minority group from government interference.
On the word of Martin Luther King Jr., “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the
Thomas Jefferson, in his 1801 First Inaugural Address for President of the United States of America, stated, “All . . . will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect and to violate would be oppression (Inaugural Addresses, 1989).” Jefferson was not alone in this thinking. James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others understood that the unbridled power of the majority, which is the life-blood of a democracy, could be easily used to ignore or degrade the rights of a minority group. The framers of our nation intended for the protection of minority rights over the “tyranny of the majority” to be an ardent duty of the federal government.
...ason this situation would go against morality is because the person would be punished for their actions, because it goes against society’s moral code.
It appears that people will always break the law to indulge in their personal vices, the difference lies in how far they are willing to take their law-breaking.
...s can arise, but choices made with some understanding of the alternatives will usually work out better than leaving matters to chance. Also, if choices are made with the welfare of others in mind they are more likely to be the right ones. In particular, if there is a problem to solve that involves conflict between the law and conscience, the best solution may be to follow one's heart. If a decision is guided by conscience, no one can better tell one what to do, or how to do it. That is how Taylor is able to take her loved ones out of Arizona, even though it means breaking the law. She feels she can not do otherwise, and the law has to take second place. Someone else might not do the same. Everything depends on both conscience and courage, but not everyone has these qualities in the same degree. Nonetheless, if even breaking the law must sometimes be considered, it can best be done by an appeal to common humanity, conscience, and the heart. That is exactly what Taylor does here. But, like Taylor, people must be prepared to live with the possible consequences of their choices and actions. Knowing clearly, however, why one's choices are made, makes such risks or obstacles acceptable.
Though the government wants majority rule to be upheld, majority factions are often proved dangerous due to the fact that they may strip the rights of minorities. In Federalist No. 10, Madison states, “When a majority is included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the public good and the rights of other citizens” to explain how the existence of large factions can be detrimental to the public good (72). In Chapter 1 of On Liberty, Mill states, “….‘the tyranny of the majority’ is now generally included among the evils against which society requires to be on its guard” to signify how the principle of majority rule can lead to the “tyranny of the majority”, also known as when the power of the majority oppresses a minority group (96). Both Mill and Madison introduce how the concept of a majority rule can harm the interests of the people outside the “majority”. A more concise example is given in Martin Luther King’s letter from Birmingham Jail; in his letter, King describes the atrocities the African Americans face on a daily basis due to the majority opinion that African Americans are not of equal standing as the whites. K...
Even the most moral person in the world should do unjust things if they knew they could never be caught, because they have the opportunity to gain something with no repercussions. People in society would see one as a fool if they knew some person had the chance to do something beneficial towards oneself without the chance of getting in trouble, and did not pursue. People do not believe that acting morally benefits one personally, only the status of being a moral person; when the opportunity appears, people will choose to act immorally because they feel it advances them from their current state. One does not strive for true morality, but instead attempt to be perceived as a moral person, to gain status in society, through unjust acts. This goes to show that people truly see morality not as an intrinsic good, but rather as an instrumental good, used to acquire more material goods and resources. People view the choice to act morally as a nuisance, not because that is their first choice of action. People will choose the action that benefits them over not receiving any benefit, unless they feel they can be caught or have to suffer injustice in the future and consequently would put them in a worse situation in the long
In conclusion, it is indeed every one’s responsibility to respect and obey just laws. But whether to disobey unjust laws calls for a prudent consideration about whether it is for any higher purpose.
What makes an act moral? The reality is that there is no right answer. Different experiences and cultures an individual would identify with will naturally dictate the moral reasoning he/she would act upon. However, certain situations can only be regarded as either moral or immoral. This is shown primarily through the philosophy of Immanuel Kant. He argued that acts such as killing or lying are never justified and one must uphold that in order to be a moral individual. When Dr. Kevorkian decided to assist his patients in committing suicide he was ultimately responsible for the murder of 130 patients. Not only did he commit acts that are morally wrong, but also contradicted his oath as a physician. In this incident, there was no exception or
The field of ethics (or moral philosophy) involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong behavior (Fieser, 2009). Many of the decisions one faces in a typical day could result in a multitude of outcomes. At times it can be hard to determine whether or not the decision you are making is an ethical one. Many philosophies have been devised to illustrate the different ways of evaluating moral decisions. Normative ethics focuses on assessing right and wrong behavior. This may involve reinforcing positive habits, duties we should follow, or the consequences of our behavior (Fieser, 2009). Of the many normative philosophies two stand out to be most accepted; teleology and deontology. Although they oppose each other in how actions are evaluated, they uphold many similar characteristics under the surface.
I believe it is acceptable and even right to break an unjust law. This is because the law is not fair or right. Laws are supposed to bring justice and if a law cannot bring justice, then breaking it is just and right. For example, laws that go aga...
1. In a society that decides things on the basis of majority rule, is there a danger that the majority might ignore the legitimate concerns of minorities? What steps can be taken to protect minority rights?
The law is the highest degree of rules and anybody who follows it could be said as a good person. But still however, a person that follows the law cannot be said entirely that he/she have good ethics and mannerism. For example, smoking in public near non-smokers and children is not against the law but it is not ethical to do that. A person that really follows the law that has written by the country certainly sometimes doesn’t show good ethics in character.