Do justifiable crimes exist?

[Amy Luman]

I don’t think that there is justification for committing a crime. The end does NOT justify them means. Usually a problem can be solved legally. I will admit that it usually takes longer that way, but is there anything worth it if there is no struggle? (If it comes easily?)

[LuckyR]

I don’t think that there is justification for committing a crime. The end does NOT justify them means. Usually a problem can be solved legally. I will admit that it usually takes longer that way, but is there anything worth it if there is no struggle? (If it comes easily?)

Is "committing a crime" equivalent to "breaking a law" in your posting?

And since problems can only be solved legally "usually", what's your plan when they can't?

[Ecurb]

I don’t think that there is justification for committing a crime. The end does NOT justify them means. Usually a problem can be solved legally. I will admit that it usually takes longer that way, but is there anything worth it if there is no struggle? (If it comes easily?)

"Where are the Jews hiding?" asks the jack-booted Gestapo, speaking, for some strange reason, in English with a phony German accent. "It is a crime to fail to help locate hiding Jews!"

"Well," said Amy. "In that case I'll tell you that they are in the secret attic. Here's the door. But I'm going to work to change the law that condemns all Jews to death!"

[GE Morton]

I don’t think that there is justification for committing a crime. The end does NOT justify them means. Usually a problem can be solved legally. I will admit that it usually takes longer that way, but is there anything worth it if there is no struggle? (If it comes easily?)

"Where are the Jews hiding?" asks the jack-booted Gestapo, speaking, for some strange reason, in English with a phony German accent. "It is a crime to fail to help locate hiding Jews!"

"Well," said Amy. "In that case I'll tell you that they are in the secret attic. Here's the door. But I'm going to work to change the law that condemns all Jews to death!"

The trouble with Amy's post is that what acts are deemed "crimes" is arbitrary, entirely discretionary with governments. You need a definition of "crime" that ties it to some rationally defensible moral standard, not one that defines it as acts deemed illegal by some government, no matter how incompetent, corrupt, or tyrannical that government.

[Pattern-chaser]

You need a definition of "crime" that ties it to some rationally defensible moral standard...

Yes, indeed! But the only problem with that is that there is no such standard, that I am aware of. And so this issue becomes murky, vague, and generally difficult to find any workable compromise. Such compromises as we do discover are probably worth adopting simply because they exist ... and because we have nothing demonstrably better.

The moral aspect of this topic is central, I think, as you have identified. And the solution evades us, so far...