If a law is unethical and therefore wrong, should that law still be followed despite you knowing it is wrong?

Ethics and morals are defined/created by people. People in your country. People in your state. People in your city. People in your family. By going against said laws you are going against what people around you have determined as right and wrong.

To "know a law is wrong" can be an opinion. It is your personal view (possibly shared by others). But understand there can/will be consequences if you are caught violating that law. Ideally, you should move to get the law fixed or removed then you won't be violating it and you can be comfortable that it won't go against your morals or ethics..

First and foremost, with all moral arguments aside, laws are not designed to make people ethical, and hence ethics are not the primary concern with laws.

Laws seek to encourage-with varying degrees of pressure-a desired behavior. This is something that was realized by the Chinese Legalists, who felt that morality was not only irrelevant, but dangerous to the rule of the state.

When ethics are up to the individual, he will in time find reason to oppose some law or another. Han Fei Tzu argued that you can't depend on people to do what is right out of a sense of responsibility or ethics-that you should not create a system dependent on the harmonious workings of the best man has to offer-but that a system of laws should force people to act in way beneficial to the state.

He said,

"Now here is a young man of bad character. His parents rail at him, but he does not reform; the

neighbors scold, but he is unmoved; his teachers instruct him, but he refuses to change his

ways. Thus, although three fine influences are brought to bear on him ‑‑ the love of his parents,

the efforts of the neighbors, the wisdom of his teachers ‑‑ yet he remains unmoved and refuses

to change so much as a hair on his shin. But let the district magistrate send out the government

soldiers to enforce the law and search for evildoers, and then he is filled with terror, reforms his

conduct, and changes his ways. Thus the love of parents is not enough to make children learn

what is right, but must be backed up by the strict penalties of the local officials; for people by

nature grow proud on love, but they listen to authority."

While Han Fei Tzu used an example of laws promoting healthy order, these same methods could easily create any desired behavior.

What all of this leads to is the understanding that the consideration of whether or not a law is just does not really cross the minds of the vast majority of people. They obey because it's to their advantage to.

Were we to wait for people to have the right motives (justice, morality, empathy, etc.) society would collapse.

As a moral relativist, I hold that laws and morality are two separate things, that only occasionally cross paths.

There's only one reason you'd follow a law that disagrees with your personal morals: that is fear.

If you're scared of the consequences for not following that law, then you should follow it regardless of its stupidity. Of course, without an example, it's difficult to say much more than that. Just think of of what will happen if the law is followed, and whatwill happen when it isn't. Decide on the better outcome.

unethical doesn't mean wrong

immoral means wrong

ethics implies an ongoing discussion of proper conduct

as for your question, good sir, I for one would disobey the law. No law is above Truth or Good.

A law cannot be ethical or moral is it contradicts Good.

And yes, I do believe Good exists, contrary to YA people and many college profs.

If the Law ordered me to kill conservatives in their homes in cold blood, I would refuse.

"If a law is unethical..."

then it is not a law.

It's just a dumb mistake. It has to be corrected, the way to do so? Usually they pass another law that cancels the previous law. I guess they do that, so that you remember not to repeat the same "legal" mistake.

you can tell your friend that in the supreme court case of marbury vs madison, any law repugnant to the constitution is null an void an it is as if it was never written

I'd follow them out of fear, but I wouldn't help to enforce them by reporting somebody for doing it.

our Founding Fathers said "no" to that question!..laws are meant to serve the people!..the people were never meant to serve the laws!