Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "when you do $x, you drain society's emergency resources" is, IMO, an absurd argument. If this is true, then you need to point the finger at so many things. Rock-climbing. Mountain biking. And it progresses, to "anything even remotely risky", where "risky is now the absolute lowest common denominator". And of course, so many sports? Banned. This sort of "walking on eggshells" view of life is quite disturbing to m…
The key difference is that all of the things you’ve listed are legal. Society allows them because the risk comes with some reward, and we find it tolerable to accept or mitigate that risk. There are plenty of other activities like speeding where the rewards do not justify the risks, and the government has made laws to prevent that risk being taken. Unlicensed aviation, amateur gas boiler repair, knife-fighting...
Example: society, and yes democratic ones, once told black people that they had no rights ; that they were animals; livestock. They also told Jews that they could not vote.
Was society spot on there?
What about the 1000s upon 1000s of examples of immoral laws which can be found, over time, and yes even now, which serves to invalidate the claim that following them is moral? From where I sit, each law must be measured against ones own morality. Failure to do so, is to cast the responsibility each human has aside, to instead wrap yourself in a shell of false righteousness!
I am not claiming "ignore the law", but merely that you may not determine what is 'right or wrong', merely due to the opinions of others around you, nor due to a societal system which attempts to balance thousands of pressures, and then pass laws.
Firstly, courts have repeated struck down sections of laws, or laws in their entirety, for this very reason. And often after those laws have stood for decades. By your logic, by your reasoning, to follow those laws is a moral requirement, yet one minute you are moral, the next immoral?
The stroke of a judge's pen, an argument in Parliament/Congress, and your morals are now right, or wrong?
No.
Your morals must be crafted on your own, examined, re-examined, see battle against your own interpretation of the universe, and grow with time. Laws are not this.
Laws are not morals.
Laws are not to be followed blindly.
To that end, I find your argument to be lacking. You assume that society is "better than the person" at determining "right or wrong". This is not so.
The government is not papa, mama, to be looked to for advice.
If you wish to discuss further, I am happy to, but I will not accept an argument that places legality on some sort of even keel, even subsuming morality.
No. Never.