andrews@ubc-cs.UUCP (James H. Andrews) (05/17/85)
In article <1067@ubc-cs.UUCP> robinson@ubc-cs.UUCP (Jim Robinson) writes: >Now, my problem is that I find it hard to understand how the leader >of the Canadian Labour Congress can advocate illegal strikes.... > .... Not only does this >make a mockery of existing labour laws, but to have someone of >McDermott's stature espousing such action creates a serious credibility >gap. I often talk to Jim and Don Acton about this kind of thing, and they usually fail to see my point! I hope this exposition will be a bit clearer. The laws of our country (quoth he), including the labour laws, are rules that our society has agreed upon about the ways people should act and the penalties obtainable if they do not act that way. They are intended to be a formalization of the informal morals of the society. But there is a higher moral structure to our lives, of which the federal legal system is just a part. This moral structure differs from creed to creed and even person to person. Jim has alluded to this structure by the use of such words as "stature" and "credibility". If a person feels that by breaking the law in some specific way he is furthering the greater good (cue trumpet flourish), then we should give him the penalty which the law prescribes, but who are we to impose our extralegal morals on him? Sometimes it's necessary to break the law in order to get your point across, or to try to change those laws. Gandhi did it, the Sandinistas did it, and Dennis McDermott is doing it. We should not let the legal judgment of these people affect our moral judgment -- or vice versa for that matter! The illegal actions of Dennis McDermott should be judged only by the law; his "stature" or "credibility" cannot be questioned from the simple fact that he has broken the law. --Jamie.