I
ihq
Guest
if you break a small law but do not do anything intrinsically immoral, is it a mortal sin?
- Status
B
Booter
Guest
Depends on what you mean by small law. If you look both ways and see there are no cars, and jaywalk to cross the street then no. If you go 70 in a 65 then no. The kids setting up lemonade stands without a permit aren’t doing anything wrong in my opinion. But all that being said, it depends on your definition of a “small law.” Grave Matter, Full Knowledge, and Full Consent are needed for Mortal sin. We should try to obey all laws though whether or not they are intrinsically wrong.
I
ihq
Guest
what about copyright laws…I believe with Michelle Arnold that downloading music for free is not intrinsically immoral…?
B
bardegaulois
Guest
It all really depends on exactly what “small law” you are talking about here.
D
Drx
Guest
What about the downloading law he jjust mentioned?
T
Tantum_ergo
Guest
Aren’t the penalties for breaking that downloading law kind of stiff?
*]In a civil suit, copyright law sets a damage range of $750 to $30,000 per infringement, or up to $150,000 if the violation was “willful.” The actual amount will be based upon what the court in its discretion considers just. See 17 U. S. C. §504.
*]Penalties to be applied in cases of criminal copyright infringement are set forth at 18 U. S. C. §2319. Congress has increased these penalties substantially in recent years, and has broadened the scope of behaviors to which they can apply. A defendant, convicted for the first time of violating 17 U. S. C. §506(a) by the unauthorized reproduction or distribution, during any 180-day period, of at least 10 copies or phonorecords, or 1 or more copyrighted works, with a retail value of more than $2,500 can be imprisoned for up to 5 years and fined up to $250,000, or both.
Still not convinced? Here is an example of a penalty for illegal downloading:
NPR reported on October 5, 2007 that a federal jury in Duluth, Minn. convicted Jammie Thomas for copyright infringement for sharing music online. Thomas is to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs involved in the case ($220,000).
Doesn’t sound like such a 'little law". . .
If something is copyrighted and you download it illegally, you’re stealing. . .which is I believe a sin against the 7th commandment. And judging by the examples above, this isn’t the moral equivalent of stealing a candy bar from a store, but more like stealing hundreds or thousands of dollars worth of a commodity. . .pretty serious.
N
Neil_Anthony
Guest
Is this the kind of “small law” that the police ignore, or even break themselves? Like going 5mph over the speed limit? Or is it the kind of “small law” that people get in trouble for?
I think that’s key to the issue of when it’s okay to just do what everyone else does in spite of a law.
A
Alphonsus_John
Guest
I wish I knew the full name, but I read this somewhat legalistic book on Catholic moral law and it had a very good paragraph that somewhat addresses this. If a law is broken by generally everyone and is generally not enforced, it isn’t a sin at all to break the law. Speeding is definitely the example. Where I live, speed limits are artificially low and are very rarely obey. They are also very rarely enforced.
Since speeding above an arbitrary amount isn’t intrinsically immoral, it’s not a sin to speed.
Since speeding above an arbitrary amount isn’t intrinsically immoral, it’s not a sin to speed.
A
Alphonsus_John
Guest
This is just my opinion, but it depends on whether or not your are “fairly using” the product. “Fair use” is a legal term used in copyright law.
Downloading music via Bit Torrent or whatnot isn’t moral, because there are valid legal opportunities to purchase the music. Giving a friend your hard drive so he can copy 100 movies isn’t moral because you’re explicitly letting him steal the movies.
Ripping purchased DVDs or Blu-ray’s to your hard drive is fair use. Letting a friend borrow your hard drive to watch, but not copy is fair use. Making a gift cd of some music to a friend is probably fair use (but I’m not a lawyer). Copying a single with the intention to purchase the album, probably fair use.
Fair use is always getting fought by the courts and the MPAA and RIAA fight hard to limit its scope.
R
Rascalking
Guest
It actually is immoral to download music for free. It’s taking someones work and stealing from them. Regardless of how anyone might try to argue against it. It’s stealing, black and white.
Other than that-jaywalking or running out of time in a parking meter aren’t immoral in the least. Sometimes those laws are just in place because the local city needs cash.
Other than that-jaywalking or running out of time in a parking meter aren’t immoral in the least. Sometimes those laws are just in place because the local city needs cash.
C
chevalier
Guest
Well, if we talk about downloading:
I’m saying this basically to state that people, even though they may have done something illegal and sinned too, shouldn’t be accepting the media publishers’ legal or moral claims without question and shouldn’t allow themselves to develop excessive scruples on the grounds of what media industry’s people say when they get out of line with their demands.
By the way, the morality of obedience to the law is not about the validity of secular authorities making up moral rules. It’s more about us being obedient citizens and doing what the authorities have a right to require us to do (also within the law they’re bound to obey). Just because they prohibit something which isn’t immoral (and I’m not saying that downloading music without paying is morally neutral, I believe it’s normally negative for the reasons I gave above) doesn’t mean we can ignore the prohibition. How big a moral transgression it is e.g. to jaywalk on an empty road with nobody seeing us (which is illegal in some countries) is another matter.
Also, some laws may command us to do evil or forbid us to do some necessary good, e.g. there are countries where Christianity is illegal and I knew a priest who was a law professor and didn’t think twice about looking for jobs for illegal immigrants (for the record, his country wasn’t the US).
Finally, I tend to think that stupid laws are subject to reason and necessity. For example, if it’s illegal to jaywalk on an empty road but the next bus will come in 20 minutes… (especially in winter when one could get a cold from waiting there all that time for the sake of a rule that failed to regulate the details sensibly and the cops love taking too literally).
- It’s true that we should pay for what we’re taking if payment is demanded (for example a basket with cookies that nobody’s watching but there’s another basket with a “$0.5” sticker and in fact even the coins are out there in the open, unwatched by anybody—we still can’t take the cookies without paying, let alone grab the coins). In the case of copying music we aren’t e.g. stealing a physically existing (and paid for etc.) CD from the shop but we’re still making an authorised copy and not paying somebody for a benefit we receive from him (the benefit of listening the music he composed, played, financed, published or whatever). Please remember that all of the people who create music or finance it or distribute it or finance it must eat, must pay the bills, have families to care for etc.
- It can’t be said that pro-copyright lobbyists and the legislators who support them are being honest and fair. In some cases the strict conditions rise to the level of absurd. Some publishers are so greedy that they would require you to shut down your music if a friend visits your place, if they could actually defend this kind of license agreement through courts or make it statutory law with the aid of their lobbyists. Some of them just know no end to their demands. And definitely not all of them who use the “artists must be paid” rhetoric actually treat artists well financially. They have a very limited right to any sort of high moral ground in such cases. They have no right to make people look like serious criminals for downloading some music (even if it might be against the law and morality). I believe it’s also immoral for them to extract grossly unproportional damages out of people, even if the law actually allows them to do so.
I’m saying this basically to state that people, even though they may have done something illegal and sinned too, shouldn’t be accepting the media publishers’ legal or moral claims without question and shouldn’t allow themselves to develop excessive scruples on the grounds of what media industry’s people say when they get out of line with their demands.
- Still, we have the option not to listen to that music. To listen to some other music. Or do something else.
- Some kind of social compromise is needed. Canada has legalised personal use sharing of music for all I know, in which case I don’t think that downloading would be morally wrong for a person in Canadian jurisdiction (I believe the authorities have the right to make this kind of disposal, especially if they provide some measure of compensation). According to my knowledge, France threatened to nationalise the industry if they’d harass crowds of simple citizens (not like those citizens need to be allowed free reign with downloading). There are more and more ways of buying music online without going to the shop, including buying a single track without need to buy the whole CD. Why not go shopping there?
- Also: do we really need a collection of music? If you pay for it, it tastes better. And you really don’t need that much of it. You enjoy each individual piece less when you have hundreds of them.
By the way, the morality of obedience to the law is not about the validity of secular authorities making up moral rules. It’s more about us being obedient citizens and doing what the authorities have a right to require us to do (also within the law they’re bound to obey). Just because they prohibit something which isn’t immoral (and I’m not saying that downloading music without paying is morally neutral, I believe it’s normally negative for the reasons I gave above) doesn’t mean we can ignore the prohibition. How big a moral transgression it is e.g. to jaywalk on an empty road with nobody seeing us (which is illegal in some countries) is another matter.
That book possibly alludes to desuetudo, where you have a law on the books but it isn’t enforced, while it isn’t removed. The actions of the sovereign suggest that the law is effectively suspended indefinitely.
Also, some laws may command us to do evil or forbid us to do some necessary good, e.g. there are countries where Christianity is illegal and I knew a priest who was a law professor and didn’t think twice about looking for jobs for illegal immigrants (for the record, his country wasn’t the US).
Finally, I tend to think that stupid laws are subject to reason and necessity. For example, if it’s illegal to jaywalk on an empty road but the next bus will come in 20 minutes… (especially in winter when one could get a cold from waiting there all that time for the sake of a rule that failed to regulate the details sensibly and the cops love taking too literally).
C
chevalier
Guest
While at it, we have all those ways of making our voices heard. We can write to legislators, we can assemble, we can launch Facebook campaigns, get signatures online, get media involved, whatever. It would be nice if citizens started protesting en masse against stupid laws, e.g. prohibition against jaywalking on an empty road (i.e. stand at attention for the red light while your bus is running away and no cars are anywhere on the road), or unjust laws like those on music and copyright. Several dozen million envelopes of snail mail should probably make even the White House or Capitol think. Sigh.
D
divinefaith
Guest
I can understand why people see illegal downloads are a form of stealing, since the song/movie/software was not supposed to be offerred for free.
On that note would it be a civil or criminal matter in the US? (Keeping in mind its sinful to illegally download either way)
I think breaking a law such as speeding would be intrinsically wrong in most cases, since the issue would be putting your safety and others at risk. The authorities must know what speed limit is unreasonable and therefore they made a law against it.
On that note would it be a civil or criminal matter in the US? (Keeping in mind its sinful to illegally download either way)
I think breaking a law such as speeding would be intrinsically wrong in most cases, since the issue would be putting your safety and others at risk. The authorities must know what speed limit is unreasonable and therefore they made a law against it.
A
Alphonsus_John
Guest
Well said, Chevalier. When I reverted to the faith, I stopped downloading free music online, but I cannot take the outrageous claims of the music or movie industry regarding fair use all that seriously.
Your jaywalking example though should also have an element of duty. Your duty to your employer by being on time for work and your duty to your family to not potentially get sick or get in trouble at work by missing the bus outweighs your duty to the state to not jaywalk when doing so puts nobody’s life at risk.
Divinefaith, not sure about where you live, but in some jurisdictions near me, the government sets the speed limit artificially low. For example, a highway near me often has a speed limit of 50 mph. It can be driven safely by a competent driver at 80-85 mph, but the flow of traffic is generally 60-70 mph. The chances of getting a speeding ticket while driving anywhere below 75 mph is very low. Insisting on driving at 50 mph ( or heaven forbid, 40 mph) could potentially put others at risk because it impedes the general flow of traffic while driving at 80 mph could put others at risk because it’s significantly faster than the flow of traffic. All of these speeds are technically breaking the law.
Having traveled though, I know in other countries and other states here in the USA highway speeds are set more sensibly and more uniformly followed.
Your jaywalking example though should also have an element of duty. Your duty to your employer by being on time for work and your duty to your family to not potentially get sick or get in trouble at work by missing the bus outweighs your duty to the state to not jaywalk when doing so puts nobody’s life at risk.
Divinefaith, not sure about where you live, but in some jurisdictions near me, the government sets the speed limit artificially low. For example, a highway near me often has a speed limit of 50 mph. It can be driven safely by a competent driver at 80-85 mph, but the flow of traffic is generally 60-70 mph. The chances of getting a speeding ticket while driving anywhere below 75 mph is very low. Insisting on driving at 50 mph ( or heaven forbid, 40 mph) could potentially put others at risk because it impedes the general flow of traffic while driving at 80 mph could put others at risk because it’s significantly faster than the flow of traffic. All of these speeds are technically breaking the law.
Having traveled though, I know in other countries and other states here in the USA highway speeds are set more sensibly and more uniformly followed.
- Status