<> In fact if we all agree that > the law is an ass, then we could also take a vote on scrapping laws > altogether and learning to survive in an openly lawless society. In answer to t he abv from "Flower2" >[Floriano Goasuraj]
I googled "The law is an ass" and found this interesting exposition: Q: I'm writing to have you fired as the Star's ethics columnist. Last week, you counselled someone to "fuggedabout" a neighbour who turned their basement into illegal student housing. But rules are rules, and respect for the law is the cornerstone of ethics. You should be ashamed of yourself. A: I got a pile of letters like this. Respect for the law is one guideline we must use when making ethical decisions. Among the many purposes of a legal system is to enshrine shared ethical values, such as abhorrence of violence, abuse, killing and so on. In last week's column, I reminded my correspondent that if such criminal laws were broken, there could well be an obligation to intervene. **Law is not, however, the final arbiter of right and wrong in the world. At various times and places, laws have supported slavery, violence against women and children, subjugation of entire classes of people, political oppression, the denial of freedom of speech - indeed, those behaviours could not have survived without the protection afforded by law.** Christians remember that their hero went to a cross in part because he violated laws that put power before people. Your questions presuppose a larger discussion, for which this column does not allow space. How do we make ethical decisions today, particularly in a society where uniform religious belief is not the norm? Basic principles like respect for life, a just sharing of resources and so on are easy to state, but their application is, rightly, the source of endless debate. **It's easier to just "obey the law" without thinking - but given the ambiguous role of law in human history, that's dangerous. Many of the world's significant social reforms have been initiated by people willing to "break the law." Nelson Mandela was a criminal before he was a hero.** Recently, in a wealthy Toronto neighbourhood, a gang of neighbours used the sort of zoning bylaws cited in last week's column to block the construction of a small cluster of townhomes on a busy corner. The homes would have sold for nearly $2 million, but neighbours fought them, in part using the argument that they might become a "student ghetto" for kids from a nearby college. **Such nonsense might be legal, but it ain't ethical.** Yes, respect for the law is a cornerstone of ethics. But using zoning bylaws as a blunt weapon to keep "undesirables" (like students, or Jews or blacks) out of our neighbourhoods is an old trick not worthy of respect. http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/226007 Btw, the letter under reference appeared in today's HERALD in truncated form. Either its author or the editors of HERALD follow stuff on goanet and act accordingly! That's good news, right? P.S. I would definitely not go so far as to say we should scrap ALL laws as being proposed abv. Just do not rely on it blindly as we in Goa seem to prefer. Is that asking for too much?