[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Prof

Laws are made by those elected (or appointed) in authority over us and it is the duty of citizens to obey those laws.

1) Even if you can justify the elected officials because at least society picked them, how do you justify the appointed official.
2) If it is the duty of citizens to obey laws, then it is the duty of the lawmakers to constantly reassess the benefits, costs, and ethics of all laws, and certainly it is not their duty to increasingly pamper to the needs and desires of the corporations.

It does not matter to me why a law was passed, or my own personal opinion of the law. I would only disobey a law if I found it morally objectionable to obey it. Even then I would not protest but accept the consequences of being a law-breaker.

IMO, there is no such thing as a absolutely non-morally objectionable law. That's because laws involve restriction of freedom, which is generally considered morally objectionable, and impose penalties that involve even more restrictions of freedoms.

Of course, well-written laws bring their own advantages. An acceptable (what most might consider "non-morally objectionable") law is one where the advantages measurably exceed the cost in freedom (for example, the law against murder brings enormous security to society).

Therefore, if a law's unjustified or even inadequately justified, it is already morally objectionable.

The problem I see with your position is that it makes laws subjective. What if I found certain laws morally unjustified (note that this is different from being morally objectionable)...

It is hard to be certain of the best reply when you do not specify the difference. I will proceed henceforth by assuming:
"Morally unjustifed" = "you perceive that the law's advantage is inadequate to compensate for the loss of freedom"
"Morally objectionable" = "you perceive a disadvantage in the law, beyond the loss of freedom it entails"

Please suggest necessary corrections.

is it then acceptable for me to disobey them, even though I might find myself in the minority? What if I were a communist who believed that property is theft? Would I be justified in taking things from others because I believed that there could be no crime of 'stealing' if nobody could own property?

Actually, in that specific case, you should add in the extra factors of the discomfit and dislocation suddenly removing possessions from a person or family would cause. True communists might not have individual property, but they do still have, by necessity, individual possessions. And it does cause substantial inconvenience for them to be taken, and possibly genuine pain.

More generally, in an ethical sense, it may well be considered moral a to take a certain amount from the rich in the society, and even give that to the poor. This collective sense of ethics by society created social welfare and progressive taxation. In taking away a large chunk of income from the rich, clearly their freedom is restricted. Yet advantages accrue in giving the poor a chance to live (you can also restate this as saying that their freedom of action improves), and most people would consider that a substantial plus.

Laws are absolute and do not require moral justification for the simple reason that morals differ from person to person, therefore there cannot exist a legal system based on personal morality.

Yet a law that does not adhere to ethics is nothing more than a tyrannical statement. The importance is in the collective, not the personal.