It is common sense that the commitment of crime is punished and persecuted in every human society. The question of morality is prevalent here: for several millennia, people were devising the formula for what deed is acceptable and what deed is not. Complex judicial systems were established as the societies have moved into more civilized states – all that humongous amount of human effort and thought for one single purpose. That purpose is the eradication of negative patterns in society, ones that do not adhere to its moral and civil rules.
The deeds that denigrate our societies, making them vile and degrading, spiraling into corruption and vice, are usually those that every member of the human community would name. The primary ones would be committing murder, rape, treason, robbery, and theft. Despite those crimes being ages-old, even those at one point were not criminalized activities. This idea is fluid – with the inevitable development of human society, specific actions are criminalized as it is recognized as detrimental to its further progression in a more refined, civilized state.
Although this model is accurate, the process of shaping people’s collective ethics is not linear. At different points in history, humanity took backward steps and endured periods of stagnation and degradation. Some of the norms accepted not as far back as two hundred years ago are appalling to the modern mind and often cause strong reactions as to what kinds of horrible injustices took place then. This is key to understanding how fluid moral norms are: what may be perceived as appropriate in a specific period of a society may shift entirely if the circumstances change.
There is one reason it is possible to say that there are, indeed, conditions under which it is appropriate to break the law. It is a fact that social norms are exceptionally fluid and highly subjective. They usually reflect their time’s ideals and concepts prevailing the general public’s opinions. Solely because of that, I can say that it is feasible for me to break the law. However, a number of conditions must also be met.
The most important one, in the presence of which it is possible for the author to commit a legal crime, is the fact that doing otherwise would cross my own ethical values. As an example, saving one’s loved one from suffering or death when the law orders to do otherwise cannot be considered a crime as far as the author is concerned. Such instances often occur under authoritarian governments, and therefore, have happened and continue to do so in the present – since totalitarianism is a part of our reality.
These are the circumstances that can lead me to break the law. Humanistic values are revered higher than the institution of direction in my personal worldview. The same thing applies to any live being – whether a human or an animal – it is against my personal values to cause suffering to them. Evidently, in order to break the law, one needs to understand the subjectivity etched into its design: however, it is not enough. The reason for doing so needs to be of exceeding moral quality.
The moral deed that sets the narrative of The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn into motion can serve as a good example. The protagonist understands the values of his time. However, he acts independently of them and, indeed, makes the right decision. One can be sure to notice that his choice has reaffirmed itself via a test of time – as we, the readers, judge his actions with a more progressed worldview. It is seen in his first reaction, “I was ever so glad to see Jim. I wasn’t lonesome now” (Twain 58). Huckleberry acts righteously because his action is driven by his heart, which is non-discriminative, non-judgmental, and not polluted by the ideas of the crippling system in place.
Work Cited
Twain, Mark. The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn. E-ArtNow, 2017. E-ArtNow. Web.