 |
| Still from Schindler's List (1993) |
Do you agree with Darrow that if you're trying to help someone, and your motives are pure, it is OK to break the rules, if that's the only way to achieve your goal?
Do you think our society today is threatened more by rule breakers who believe the ends justify the means OR by rule followers who blindly observe regulations that help replicate the current power structure?
I agree with Darrow when he says, "When you are up against a bunch of crooks, you will have to play their game." I agree with this because if someone was being beaten or being threatened and attacked by another individual, I believe that they should take any means necessary to try and protect themselves. If breaking the rules to help yourself, or help another person in life threatening trouble, then it should be acceptable. To break the law for personal, or malicious reasons should not be acceptable. Laws are placed to protect individuals and society. Malicious and personal law breaking should be punishable and have consequences. In today's society, I believe that we are afraid of the rule breakers, and the ones who loyally follow the laws. We are afraid that the ones who break the laws will ultimately hurt more people and do more damage than good, but we also fear that those who live by the law will unfortunately not help another in trouble if it means breaking the law.
ReplyDelete-Russell McCreary II
Darrow is correct in certain circumstances, but not for all. If you see a dog locked in a hot car it is more than okay to break the car's window to get the dog out of a potentially deadly situation. In situations such as this or similar, it is okay to break the rules if it means saving another person's life. However, even if your intentions are in the right place, it should never be okay to harm another person. Say you notice the dog in the car as the owner was getting out. You go over and ask the owner to think of other solutions rather than simply leaving the dog in the warming car. The owner refuses and you decide to retaliate physically - maybe if you teach him a lesson he won't do it again. Assaulting a person should not be the answer to a problem. Today's society is much more threatened by rule breakers with the right intentions. Even with good motives, most of the time breaking the law has more bad repercussions than good ones. There's almost always more than one solution to a problem but you just have to figure it out, even if it is more time consuming.
ReplyDeleteAs long as a person's motives are objectively pure, then it is absolutely fine to break the rules in order to achieve his or her goal. The laws of the state should not be the source of one's moral code. The society we live in today is more threatened by those who fall in line and obey without a thought than by those who break rules. It is completely legal for a person over the age of 18 to view pornography, but is it morally justifiable to support an industry that enables human trafficking and rape? Industries such as these should be fought against, but because this industry is legal, many fail to see the problem it imposes.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Darren. Yet, it is a double edged sword. Where would African Americans be if Rosa Parks hadn't taken a stand (or a sit, rather) on that bus when she refused to give up her seat for her white cohort? What about the Osage and the control of their money? Following rules is good, everyone should follow rules, UNLESS they are unjust. I think today's blind rule followers danger society more than the rule makers; Rules can easily be changed. But for a rule to be changed it must first be broken.
DeleteRules are constructed by ideals of societies, which are always developing and changing, so rules almost always need to be broken or pushed in order to bring about change. Almost all major events in history started from a rebellion against social structures, and it is easy to forget in the present that many people opposed the "right" that eventually won out and created the environment we live in today. So I agree that rules are not concrete, but are created to fit the ideas of a certain time in cultures. Morals and needs change overtime inside of communities, so the rules consequently follow the new ideas. As long as the intentions of breaking the laws are "pure" and aimed toward bettering society, I think that it is important to go against them when it seems necessary.
DeleteKatie Cowger
In a situation where the morally right decision may not line up with the legal one, I agree with Darrow. However, when considering that nearly every person's morals are different and the many loopholes that the statement poses, it becomes more difficult to agree with. Each situation is different, and it is impossible to create laws that can protect every person in every situation. When problems arise where a decision is morally right, but may not be completely legal, most would chose to follow their own morals. It is up to the citizens to understand right and wrong in a society just as much as it is up to lawmakers to listen to concerns and put fair laws in place to keep citizens safe. In societies where people blindly follow laws, corrupt governments can put laws in place that would lead to the harm of certain groups of citizens. I believe a balance between the citizens and the lawmakers must be reached.
ReplyDelete- Destiny Rowell
DeleteI agree with Darrow’s statement regarding people who have pure intentions; it is okay to break the rules so long as a person’s motives are pure. For example, if one is in a life-threatening situation, then it could be okay to try to fight for their life and disregard the rules. However, I do believe that there is a fine line between having pure intentions and acting like one has pure intentions. For example, Jodi Arias killed a man, yet she changed her story several times. One of her stories was that it was self-defense, but was it really? In addition, I believe that our society today is much more threatened by rule breakers who believe that the end goal is worth it; the amount of new people in the daily jailbirds proves that.
ReplyDeleteLegal does not equal moral. That being said, if I feel the need to break a law to achieve something that I think is morally correct, I have no problem doing so. The lines in this area do become a little blurry, because everyone has a different sense of what is "moral", but if nobody is harmed and there is an ultimate benefit to breaking a rule, it should be broken. I believe our society is plagued with people who treat the entirety of our law like a moral compass. There was a point in our history where it was perfectly legal for us to enslave and own other people! I do not see how a person can never question the law knowing that this is true. People need to begin thinking for themselves and standing up for what is right, regardless of legality.
ReplyDeleteIt is necessary for the rules to be broken and replaced. The American colonies under the British rule recognized this and started their revolution. On a much smaller note if it is necessary for me to break a law to do what I believe to be right I have no problem doing it. I believe to many today are blindly going about life and not questioning if that law or order is the right or good thing to do.
ReplyDeleteIn some cases it is necessary to break the rules as Darrow said. I believe if you want to catch a criminal you will have to think like one. For change in a society laws have to be broken and once they are we call it progress. On the other hand those we break the rules are punished and if the goal is the catch the criminal while using any means we break rules also so does that makes us criminals also? Again, depending on the morality of the person will depend on how far they will take breaking the law.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Darrow’s assertion that when against crooks you have to play their game. I think that if your motives are moral then you should do whatever it takes to get there. If the end goal is to achieve something worthwhile and righteous the outcome would be of more importance than the road you took to get there. I think that our society today is threatened most by the rule breakers who believe their ends will justify the means. It is especially threatening when their end is in no way pure.
ReplyDelete