Is it always good to have morals first before you follow the laws and rules?

1. 67

   alexandriaruthkposted 13 years ago

   Is it always good to have morals first before you follow the laws and rules?
   
   In the case of a lifesaver who was removed from his job because he saved a drowning man out of his area of jurisdiction. There are a lot of implications of the act of saving a drowning man, what if the man died, leaving your post is unlawful etc.?

   replyreport
2. 65

   SportsBetterposted 13 years ago

   Depends if the laws are moral, most aren't.

   replyreport
3. 82

   Brett Winnposted 13 years ago

   Perhaps the better question is where do good moral values come from? I submit that the ONLY place morality comes from is from God's law in the Bible. Do not kill? It is in the ten commandments. Do not commit adultery? The same. Do not steal? Ditto. Whether or not we give credit to it, morality originates with God's law.
   
   With regard to your example ... my question would be, whose is the higher law? The municipality, or God's? I would think the value placed on a man's life would trump the municipality's law, which is not to say that he would not be unjustly punished. However in the end, I believe his correct choice will be justified and recognized.

   replyreport
4. 0

   Lady_Eposted 13 years ago

   I was going to say have good morals first but Sports Better made a point. These days "Morals" differ.
   
   For me, I would rather save a life, than follow the law. Its not nice to live with the fact that a person died because you didn't help them.

   replyreport
5. 69

   Coolbreezingposted 13 years ago

   Morals are base on natural laws. Thou shall not steal the property of others. Thou shall not do to others what he would not want done to self. These  are moral values deriving from common sense, which is why they're considered natural law, they do not need to be thought. Rule and state laws are base on our civic duties as citizens. Although there can be some similarities, they don't always follow the same logic. State law - NO Parking, Do Not Enter. State laws doesn't have to follow common sense, it's an order. Having good morals doesn't help us accept State laws, it forces us to question why the law is there the first place.   
   
   In your example the act of saving a man fail short because the man died which could become consequential although the intent behind the attempt is just. But had the man lived the action saving the man should have become justified and praised. Therefore, the unlawful act of the man leaving the post is balanced out with the action of the man saving a life, which doesn't make the action of the man leaving the post lawful but canceled out by his brave act.

   replyreport
6. 78

   raciniwaposted 13 years ago

   there are laws that are not in adherence to morals and there are morals that are not legal, yet we must consider that life supersedes above all else regardless whether it is moral or legal...

   replyreport
   1. 69

      Coolbreezingposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Good comment raciniwa. Life is indeed the most to be considered, but I wonder which among the laws that are not in adherence to morals are you thinking about or perhaps you can provide examples to those morals which to you are not legal. The example

      replyreport
7. 82

   BlissfulWriterposted 13 years ago

   Morals first.   Lifesaver is correct to save drowning man even if it is against regulation.  Better to save life and lose job, than to save job and lose life -- obviously.

   replyreport
8. 70

   libby1970posted 13 years ago

   I think it would be immoral to allow a man to drown and not attempt to help him. How could you live with yourself? I know I couldn't! In most cases, the law and most rules will fall in line with morals...but as in this case it doesn't. A person has to use their own judgement and decide is saving a life worth breaking a rule? I say screw the rules if a life is at stake.

   replyreport
9. 98

   michelleonly3posted 13 years ago

   My answer to the life guard is DO WHAT YOU CAN LIVE WITH. In other words I am pretty sure this guy will fnd another job, but would he have been able to live with himself if he let that man die? I would rather look for a job than live with letting someone die. This is not a moral choice it is the life guards job to save a life. The person who should have been fired was the life guard who was suppose to be watching that area. Policy should never take the place of common sense!!!
   
   As for morals, they are a from the bible. Without those morals men would still be clubbing each other to death for meat (ok so this still happens in some countries). The point is we built the basic laws of this country from the ten commandments. Men have proven time and time again that when they are left to make laws it will be dumb laws.
   
   Carmel California  "Women may not wear high heels while in the city limits". I could go on...

   replyreport