What's morally worse?

[fakename]

not defying an unjust law or causing someone to go homeless?

(just trying to rank actions according to morality for future reference)

 

[surritter]

I would say more detail is needed…

What kind of unjust law? The useless stop sign at the end of my desolate street? Or legislation which would permit unlimited abortions?

Why is the person homeless? Was he intentionally causing destruction in my home, and I was forced to evict him?

Sorry to give a non-answer, but I wouldn’t feel comfortable ranking them without these details.

 

[fakename]

Say, a crushing tax that maintains maybe the farming sector. But to disobey such a law would cause farmers to become unemployed to the point of say homelessness.

What do you think is the best option? disobey a law that makes some people poor or disobey a law and thereby causing people to become poor?

 

[surritter]

For the situation given, I might say that it’s better to just pay the tax (but to try to effect change in that law, of course).

Yes, to pay the tax would be a burden on you. But if the burden is going to fall somewhere, a Christian might prefer to absorb the burden, thus putting others first. To avoid the tax (by illegal means) is to put the burden on others (the farmer) and also imposes the added sin of disobedience to lawful authority.

 

[Newbie2]

We have to be careful about comparing the morality of different actions or inactions; such can lead to moral relativism.

It is better, when possible (and it’s not always possible) to look at actions individually as to their moral acceptability or inacceptability, at least in general.

Some situations do require choosing between the lesser of two evils, but only when there is simply no other alternatives. These situations require following one’s well-formed conscience.

 

[Ron_Conte]

(just trying to rank actions according to morality for future reference)

On the subject of degrees of moral disorder in knowingly chosen acts:

There are three fonts of morality: 1. intention, 2. moral object, 3. circumstances. If all three fonts are good, the act is moral. If any one or more fonts is bad, the act is a sin. The greater the disorder in the three fonts, the greater the sin.

An intrinsically evil act (an act with a bad moral object) is always a sin. The same act done with a bad intention is a greater sin. The same act done when the bad consequences can be reasonably anticipated to morally outweigh the good consequences is a greater sin.

If an act has one font that is gravely disordered, i.e. gravely contrary to the love of God and neighbor, then the act is objectively a mortal sin. The other fonts can make the act more sinful, or less sinful, but never less than objectively a mortal sin.

 

[John21652]

Say, a crushing tax that maintains maybe the farming sector. But to disobey such a law would cause farmers to become unemployed to the point of say homelessness.

What do you think is the best option? disobey a law that makes some people poor or disobey a law and thereby causing people to become poor?

Your use of the term maybe indicates an inexact causal link between the tax and why it is being levied and what it is being used for. You could say a tax is being levied and the proceeds being used for a myriad of purposes. Unless you can show a link between the tax levy and what it is being spent on, there is no causal link between two acts that may or may not be ‘evil’. Disobeying the law may not cause farmers to be homeless.
Without the link, then just focus on why the tax is a ‘bad law’. Is it an unjust tax and why is it an unjust tax? The other part of the equation is the requirement that farmers need to be given money so they don’t become homeless. Is the prevention of farmers’ (or others) homelessness dependent upon the unjust taxation of others? It could be that more than one injustice is being perpetrated here.