That's an interesting point, and obviously upheld by the law to some extent, i.e. if you kill someone in self-defence. But I don't think it should legitimise EVERYTHING, regardless of immorality, i.e. committing mass murder. The line has to be drawn somewhere, obv the problem is where we draw it.
No, there is no lines, you do what you need to do to survive. If someone held a gun to my head, and said i had to press a button that would activate bombs in a school, i would do it because i am a coward and i dont want to die. Even if there was something i wouldnt do, i could hardly judge someone else for doing it if it was a do or die situation.
Thats where the justice system fails imo, because it cant prevent this. What are they going to do? execute me for killing school kids? oh well, i would have died anyway, at least i got a few more years to live.
nothing really trumps the law of survival, maybe survival of your kids, but again thats a personal matter. Whilst i wouldnt do it, i couldnt condemn someone that chose not to sacrifice themselves to save their kid, and instead let their kid die.
In these situations it doesnt really matter what the law says or does after the fact, because the most precious thing we have is our lives so it makes sense to take all steps necessary to protect it, even if Canberra says otherwise.
Theres a few other laws that imo are wrong, and it is not morally wrong to break. Taking drugs for instance is a personal choice that only affects you, why should the government care what you do with your own body?
