Ethics question

[MarieP]

Recently, a friend of mine asked me to remove a picture from Facebook of us next to a model car in a mall. We didn't notice it before we snapped the picture, but it had one of those "Do Not Touch" signs on it. She wanted it taken down because all she could think about was that sign!

That got me to thinking- obviously, it is wrong to disobey laws and prohibitions that the government has created (traffic signs and the like). But what about other signs? What about something that says "do not touch?" What about being at a park, and there is a spot just off the trail that says "Hiking past this point is not permitted" or "Do not climb" (many times in faded lettering). Or "no food or drink allowed" as you enter a store with your drink with a lid on it. I know they are posted for safety, either for you or for the environment/things for sale, etc, though in some places it's obviously over-cautious, but how do we deal with such things? Is someone who disregards these things perhaps just too brave (or foolhardy, take your pick) for their own good, or are they sinning? Does it matter by whom the sign was posted?

 

[Herald]

Marie,

If the signs are lawful then we should obey them. If you're in a business, and it has a sign that says "Shirts must be worn" or "Do not touch", then you should also obey. After all, it's a private business. If we don't like what the sign is telling us to do we are free to patronize another store. It also a matter of respect for another individual.

 

[Tim]

Marie,

If the signs are lawful then we should obey them. If you're in a business, and it has a sign that says "Shirts must be worn" or "Do not touch", then you should also obey. After all, it's a private business. If we don't like what the sign is telling us to do we are free to patronize another store. It also a matter of respect for another individual.

This seems quite appropriate for private locations because one does not have the right to be there if asked to leave.

But what about public locations? Now, we certainly may not have a picnic in the middle of the freeway...but I would be interested to know the legality/penalty of stepping over the fence near a waterfall. Would this sort of thing controlled by local bylaws?

 

[Andres]

What is the reason someone might purposefully disobey a sign? It would seem to me that there would be a rebellious spirit involved under most circumstances and I don't see how that would glorify God.

 

[Tim]

Well, I suppose the first question is regarding the authority of the sign itself. Is it to be seen as coming from the civil magistrate in all cases? If not, are we obligated to obey it?

 

[Miss Marple]

"What is the reason someone might purposefully disobey a sign? "

I'd purposefully disobey it if I thought it was not in the signmaker's sphere of authority to put it there; and it suited my purposes to break it.

For example if someone put up a sign: "No parking" on a public street near their house, and I needed a parking space, I'd park there, regardless of the sign.

 

[JoannaV]

As has been mentioned, there are several factors involved. Who posted the sign? And what is the intention of the sign? Some signs do require more interpretation than others. For example, the "no food or drink" sign sometimes actually means "no eating or drinking"...or, you know, depending on the location, it might not be a problem that you have a pack of mints in your handbag. In some situations though that sign might indeed mean no mints on your person.

 

[VictorBravo]

Well, I suppose the first question is regarding the authority of the sign itself. Is it to be seen as coming from the civil magistrate in all cases? If not, are we obligated to obey it?

It is true that the authority of the sign (or better said, the authority behind the sign) is important, but it does not necessarily have to come from a civil magistrate.

The law recognizes that the owner of private property has his own authority to regulate behavior on or regarding his property, even if he is not a civil magistrate.

And, of course, the private property owner can demand the civil magistrate execute the power of the law to protect his private interests.

On the other hand, if the sign is clearly without authority, as in Miss Marple's example, I don't see a need to obey it.

But, having said that, suppose there is a sign on a public street, clearly put up by a private person, saying something like, "watch out for the out-of-control children darting into the street--please drive slowly."

As far as the civil magistrate is concerned, a driver would only have to obey the posted speed limit. But if a driver was obeying the speed limit and hit a darting child anyway, his ignoring of that sign might be held against him in a civil claim, because he had notice of a danger.

Sometimes duties imposed on people by the law can become complicated.

 

[earl40]

I used to run a certian stoplight in the middle of the night quite often....till I got a $200 ticket. I used to justify doing such knowing that there was no traffic coming for over a mile. I admit the temtation is still there. I wonder if Augustines "spirit of the law" applies to circumvent "the letter of the law" here?

 

[Tim]

I must admit that I feel utterly foolish when, as a grown man with full use of my five senses, I must sit at a red light when it is perfectly clear that there are no other cars or pedestrians to be seen.

 

[Miss Marple]

I am not quite ready to say it is a sin to go through the intersection at that point. I consider the spirit of the law along with the letter.

 

[JoannaV]

I think here it is legal for a motorcycle to go through certain red lights sometimes. You know how some lights are triggered by sensors, but some aren't able to sense motorbikes? I'm sure there are other situations where one might be forced to disobey a traffic law. If one had a cell phone I suppose you could try asking the police for advice; not sure if they're appreciate that call or not!

 

[Andres]

I will tell you right now if you call any competent police department they will advise you to obey all traffic signs, including red lights. Your opinion on whether the sign is appropriate, helpful, or necessary means nothing.

 

[Miss Marple]

Oh I know, Andrew, I could get a ticket for it if seen. I'm not advising anyone to do it.

 

[Andres]

Oh I know, Andrew, I could get a ticket for it if seen. I'm not advising anyone to do it.

I was responding to Joanna's post above about calling the police and asking them for advice.

 

[toddpedlar]

I am not quite ready to say it is a sin to go through the intersection at that point. I consider the spirit of the law along with the letter.

I'm not sure I understand the reticence to obey the law. How is it possible to obey "the spirit of the law" while blatantly disobeying the letter? When "the spirit of the law" is used as justification for action or encouragement toward action, it ought only to come about when one decides to obey the letter but do so only grudgingly, doing the absolute minimum that is required. THEN one rightly brings up "the spirit of the law" as an encouragement for the person in question not simply to do as little as possible to conform to the law, but obey its spirit. Your conception turns that good principle on its head.

I'm sure a policeman would understand and not give you a ticket if he witnessed your driving through the red light and you told him what you've told us. It's disobedience of a clear prohibition rightly and lawfully given by the magistrate, and easily identifiable as a sin. We're not free to put our own gloss on it.

 

[Tim]

How is it possible to obey "the spirit of the law" while blatantly disobeying the letter?

Here is an example. Say every single car on the freeway is going 10 mph over the posted limit. What do you do? The spirit of the law is to promote safety. Everyone would be the safest if you join in and drive the same speed as the others. In doing so, you would be obeying the spirit of the law, yet disobeying the letter.

 

[toddpedlar]

How is it possible to obey "the spirit of the law" while blatantly disobeying the letter?

Here is an example. Say every single car on the freeway is going 10 mph over the posted limit. What do you do? The spirit of the law is to promote safety. Everyone would be the safest if you join in and drive the same speed as the others. In doing so, you would be obeying the spirit of the law, yet disobeying the letter.

That's fine... just don't claim that you're obeying the law when you do that.

 

[Tim]

That's fine... just don't claim that you're obeying the law when you do that.

Well, then the question becomes, which law takes precedence? Is it God's law to not kill or is it the state traffic law to not exceed a certain speed? If one truly believes that it is safer to "go with the flow", then is it unethical to exceed the speed limit in that particular situation?

 

[Mushroom]

Sign Sign everywhere a sign
Blocking out the scenery breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign....

 

[JoannaV]

I will tell you right now if you call any competent police department they will advise you to obey all traffic signs, including red lights. Your opinion on whether the sign is appropriate, helpful, or necessary means nothing.

Well I was more thinking of a case where you got..stuck somewhere. For example, you drive up to a red light. The light never changes. NEVER. You may have no way of ever leaving your position without breaking some kind of traffic law. So you could either choose to break a traffic law, or ask the local policeman to...advise or come out and rescue you. A truly competent police officer would assist in rescuing you from a potentially dangerous predicament.

The authorities don't always care to know about bad signs though. We parked by a sign saying we could park, and then got towed. But no-one cared about correcting the sign.

So perhaps the final lesson from this thread, is you should try to live some place that doesn't have an over-abundance of bad signs! (eg not DC!)

 

[Miss Marple]

I think when we make an idol of the law we become sort of ridiculous. I am willing, I hope, to be a fool for Christ. But I am not willing to call every breaking of every tittle of every man made law a sin.

"Sin" is an important concept, and I don't want to water it down, that is all. That doesn't mean I want to gloss over it, I hope.

My husband once told me to wait on a street corner for him to pick me up. A clear instruction. I waited and waited as it rained and rained. After an hour and a half, I went in to use a pay phone (in tears). He was angry at me for waiting so long. It turns out we had a misunderstanding as to which corner to meet upon; and he was angry that I did not have and I quote "sense enough to come in out of the rain!" Well, I was so caught up in obeying my husband's word I got stupid, to put it bluntly. While his instruction was clear, it was based on the notion that he'd be there within a reasonable range of time and I wouldn't be getting soaked.

I could give many such examples. Laws have their purpose but they are not Lord, and while we are to obey our lawful magistrates, I don't really go along with the idea of a slavish devotion that they don't even actually expect.

 

[MW]

The "spirit of the law" presupposes that people in authority are generally in a better position to know all the factors governing the peace and safety of those under their care and therefore make the law for the collective good. It might not be in a particular individual's self-interest to obey the law at a particular time but it is in the interests of the peace and safety of the society, and so one should regard themselves as bound not only by the authority but also by the duty to put others before themselves. As the "spirit of the law" seeks the peace and safety of everyone it is obvious that the letter might be broken if, and only if, an individual's peace and safety is at risk. Of course, this only relates to the examples posed later in the thread, not to private signs posed by the OP. Still, the duty to live at peace with all men should make us generally respectful of the wishes of others concerning their persons and property.

 

[Jackie Kaulitz]

In reply to MarieP's situation, if a nice owner had asked me to please not touch the model car because she wanted it to stay clean-looking, I would (unless I was acting from a selfish or rebellious spirit) agree to not touch it. I believe this is the thoughtful, considerate and ethical thing to do - not to touch her property. I believe in ignoring her request and touching it, I would be failing to "love my neighbor" and choosing my wants/desires over hers.

So although at first glance, it might seem picky to be asked to take down a photo from FB, on the other hand, it might appear to some as "endorsing breaking the law" or "endorsing unloving behavior towards your neighbor." I think sin doesn't end at "breaking the law of not breaking the law" but also sin is "failing to love our neighbor" or "failing to be considerate of others and their property."

I think you did the right thing in taking it down. I think it was probably hard for your friend to ask you to take it down and I respect her for speaking up. And I think it's wonderful and loving of you to put her conscience before your desire to have the picture up. Now that is loving your neighbor.

 

[darrellmaurina]

I must admit that I feel utterly foolish when, as a grown man with full use of my five senses, I must sit at a red light when it is perfectly clear that there are no other cars or pedestrians to be seen.

I believe J. Gresham Machen once gave testimony before the state legislature against traffic signals for this very reason. My memory, however, may be wrong.

Before anyone interprets my citation of Machen as advocating lawbreaking, I have hundreds of photographs on my computer of car crashes involving serious injuries and fatalities that were caused by people speeding or ignoring traffic signals. When my police scanner goes off, I may end up standing in pouring-down rain for hours to get a photo of the wreckage.

Traffic laws exist for a reason. Breaking them risks breaking your body into multiple pieces, or worse yet, that of someone else.

For example -- the kid today in my city who was riding a bicycle, was sideswiped by a passing car, and now has paralyzed legs. He'll probably never walk again.

If we're going to be driving a vehicle that weighs several thousand pounds, we probably ought to think about the consequences before we get behind the wheel.

Sometimes not obeying the law can have temporal as well as eternal consequences.

 

[JennyG]

If you're in a business, and it has a sign that says "Shirts must be worn" or "Do not touch", then you should also obey. After all, it's a private business. If we don't like what the sign is telling us to do we are free to patronize another store. It also a matter of respect for another individual.

that's the reasonable principle that was NOT allowed to apply in the recent UK cases of B&B owners sued for refusing double rooms to same-sex couples. Instead, it came down to

If the signs are lawful

and of course they were said not to be. We seem to be reaching a time when it's no longer possible (in the UK at least) just to relax and go with the law of the land, because it may well be in direct opposition to a higher law.

 

[OPC'n]

I'm just curious as to why she wants you to take down the pic from FB. Does she not like the sign so much that seeing the pic irritates her, or were you guys touching the car and seeing the pic with the sign in it reminds her she did something she shouldn't have done? Sorry a bit to the OP, but that was my first question

 

[Scott1]

That's fine... just don't claim that you're obeying the law when you do that.

Well, then the question becomes, which law takes precedence? Is it God's law to not kill or is it the state traffic law to not exceed a certain speed? If one truly believes that it is safer to "go with the flow", then is it unethical to exceed the speed limit in that particular situation?

The magistrate has power to set laws, even those we do not agree with. Yet, we also know that if the magistrate's law directly contradict Scripture, we have a cause to disobey.

Being sinners all, this is a slippery slope because we easily rationalize our disobedience- of God, and of the magistrate's he ordains to power.

But we have to accept in your example, going 10mph over the speed limit, it's quite a judgment call (of the lawbreaker) to say that going 10mph over is more safe than the posted limit. How about only 9mph, how about 11mph? How about 19mph over?

The common law, which was the greatest attempt ever to discern biblical law, actually allows for the situation you assume.

Many states have what they call a "prima facie" speed limit, as opposed to the "absolute" one. In the former, there might be circumstances where the posted speed limit is not recognized (even by the magistrate) as being the safest one. It is presumed to be, but, in some cases that can be refuted, legally.

So, to use an extreme example, if someone was outrunning a menacing tornado bearing down on the highway, one could speed way up to avoid it. Believe it or not, there have actually been test legal cases like this to "prima facie" speed limit.

It's not a simple proposition- some speed limits are absolute, set by the state. And the standard of reasonableness to violate a limit is an objective one, not a subjective one set solely by the violator.

And the BURDEN of proving the 'rightness' of the prima facie violation is on the offender.

When each man does what is right in his own eyes, it is indeed a slippery slope.

Deuteronomy 12:8
Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

Judges 17:6
In those days there was no king in Israel, but every man did that which was right in his own eyes.

Proverbs 12:15
The way of a fool is right in his own eyes: but he that hearkeneth unto counsel is wise.

 

[Scott1]

Recently, a friend of mine asked me to remove a picture from Facebook of us next to a model car in a mall. We didn't notice it before we snapped the picture, but it had one of those "Do Not Touch" signs on it. She wanted it taken down because all she could think about was that sign!

This is probably beyond the scope of your question,
but I have pondered whether the digital media manipulation of images can be a ninth commandment violation.

E.g. taking someone and altering their appearance digitally for an intended effect-
making someone look "beautiful" who is not (in the eyes of the media person, anyway).

Or deliberately making a photo of a disliked (by the media) person look foolish or disoriented or deliberately selecting the most unflattering frame photo to try and create a negative impression.

It's eye opening, but this is done intentionally, routinely, even predictably today in major media.

 

[Edward]

Here is an example. Say every single car on the freeway is going 10 mph over the posted limit. What do you do? The spirit of the law is to promote safety. Everyone would be the safest if you join in and drive the same speed as the others. In doing so, you would be obeying the spirit of the law, yet disobeying the letter.

I've been known to drive faster than the speed limit - most of the expressways around here are set for EPA, not safety, reasons. And most of the folks driving the speed limit are either illegals, elderly, or have a cell phone glued to their ear. But I don't claim the moral high ground when doing so. I could always pull over to the far right lane and drive the same speed they do, and let everyone else go around me.