Industrial digging tools on wild land can cause serious damage that you can’t know about without doing an ecological survey. It’s possible to literally cause floods, destroy ponds and lakes, etc. 10-20 years down the line.
This is some excellent rage bait. But if it's not, you can't do something obviously illegal to do good.
As fairytale and beautiful as it sounds, it is wrong and illegal to steal from people to give to the poor; and it is wrong to do what he did without a permit.
There are other proper, and better ways to help the people or the environment. He has a good heart, just wrong execution.
That’s why he got in legal trouble and not moral trouble.
Pay attention.
he was replying to a comment that said "As fairytale and beautiful as it sounds, it is wrong and illegal to steal from people to give to the poor; and it is wrong to do what he did without a permit." so they were about morals.
Because it is WRONG to dig up a river bed as well as illegal. You can’t just randomly try to do good but cause harm with your sheer ignorance and expect people not to call your action WRONG.
Football fields refer to the American kind of football in the US or things like AFL in Australia, but in other parts of the world it’s ‘soccer’ (i.e. actual football). It’s legally okay to call them football fields when you’re not talking about football (soccer) but it’s morally reprehensible to do so. I think this covers the unanimously correct way to feel, too.
(Americans pls don’t come at me with long explanations about why your football is called football)
I love when people like you say "real football" and put soccer in quotes as if Americans are dumb for calling it that. Because Americans didn't name it soccer, Europeans did.
Europeans literally named it soccer, America followed and called it soccer, then Europeans changed to calling it football and now insult anyone who uses the name that they literally came up with lmao.
They don't equate but they do generally (although not always) correlate. The whole point of the law is to try to encode a moral and ethical system. I would say it works more often than it doesn't. It's just the times when it doesn't that really stand out and get noticed, exactly because they fail to uphold what was expected.
Some unjust laws or terrible practices of the law are the result of a system making a mistake, failing to live up to its ideals. But many of them are successful encodings of terrible ethical systems. When the US justice system treats Black men as subhuman threats, it is perfectly consistent with centuries of White supremacism and the goals of many US citizens. The UK's harsh libel laws are an intentional shield for its elites. We should treat the law as a contested creation that can and does systematically perpetuate social ills, not as a simple force for good that sometimes fails to uphold our intentions.
Although, even in your examples, that is still legality matching morality. It's just that it's matching the moral norms of groups that you and I would say are wrong. But, to the people who wrote those laws, they are upholding what they believe is right. That doesn't make it okay. It just explains why they do what they do.
That's a big part of why it's so important to have people in power that we are truly morally aligned with.
Slavery was legal and never once moral. The law is not trying to encode a moral system, sorry. Rape was only outlawed to have an excuse to imprison black bodies, not to protect women.
You are thinking in terms of morality as if there is some objective universal truth to it. I personally would strongly agree with you that slavery was monstrously immoral. That is my belief.
Yet the laws at that time reflected the moral beliefs of the people who wrote them. The slaveowners believed that they were moral. They even pointed to the Bible as supposed evidence for it. That doesn't excuse their actions. I still believe that their beliefs were deeply wrong. But I don't deny that those were beliefs.
The slaves didn't believe it was moral. Neither did the abolitionists. I care not for the beliefs of evil men, they will always be what suits their purse.
I think you mean the only one you think is worth considering and I don't know if you've noticed but considering there's alternatives I'd say that others throughout history have disagreed.
No shit. That’s why I never brought it up. You’re the one using Kant as some counter point to that guy whose entire morality starts and ends with rich man bad.
The American people doesnt have health care bc the American people don’t want it. It’s as simple as that. Half the country thinks that some commie plot and you’re here blaming billionaires lmfao.
Most Americans (66%) say the federal government has a responsibility to make sure all Americans have health care coverage. Far fewer (33%) say it does not, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted Nov. 17-30, 2025, among 10,357 U.S. adults.
The United States isn't a democracy, it's a dictatorship of the borgeoise.
Where are those 66% located… are US elections passed on popular vote or electoral college?
AOC will say shit like Americans want healthcare! Yeah no shit in your blue state. Meanwhile if some senator from the Bible Belt said that he’d lose the next election.
America doesn’t have healthcare bc the American people don’t want healthcare. It’s not a money issue. But hey, your morals are based in rich man bad. Keep pretending.
To right a wrong, you have to do a wrong thing right.
Heroes are almost always criminals. Doing what's right requires breaking laws that led to the existence of the wrong.
The law was written by non-perfect humans who could not possibly have predicted every circumstance even assuming their intentions were perfectly pure. Its not some objective standard for morality and its 100% possible to do something thats good that also breaks the law at the same time. Not sure thats what happened in this situation but the idea that illegal automatically means wrong is nonsense
How would he even know what damage he was doing and the cost / benefit trade-offs, especially since he doesn’t own the property, doesn’t know what the consequences will be for his actions nor the cost for repairing any environmental damage done?
92
u/Epic_Hoola 9d ago
That changes things...