But essentially, at least on the face of it, the general issue appears to be whether having a moral justification gives a person a free pass to break laws.
In a free society, people can legally change the government, change the law and bring about various other changes through legal means. There exist legal mechanisms for redress of grievances. So what excuses a resort to extra-legal direct action?
This is a fundamental principle. Should we, in a free society, concede the existence of a moral justification for prima facie lawbreaking? If we find it tempting to do so when we agree with the claimed justification, what happens when we don’t?
Once one has rejected the authority of law, how is one to distinguish between acceptable and unacceptable claims of moral justification? If, secure in my self-righteousness, I am entitled to decide the law does not apply to me, by what right or means shall I insist it applies to other people?
Unfortunately, a precedent for one is a precedent for all. To apply one rule to your moral allies and another to your opponents is not a principle that favours prolonged continuance of freedom in our society.
