Isitevermorallyacceptabletodisobeythelaw?Any attempt at answering this question must first establish how we may determine whether an action is morally acceptable. Morality is an extremely subjective area. Each individuals moral code is likely to be different from the next and there are many different ideas as to how one should determine what is morally right or acceptable. At the extremes exist the conflicting ideologies of utilitarianism and deontological ethics. Utilitarianism argues the action which gives rise to the greatest good for the greatest number. In contrast, the theory of deontological ethics argues that right and wrong should be determined on the action and not its consequence. In other words, actions are considered right or wrong in principle regardless of the outcome they produce. If one imagines these systems as the two ends in the spectrum of moral codes one could argue each of us holds moral values which exist at some point on this continuum. As a result, what may be considered morally acceptable will vary greatly depending on the individual questioned.Secondly, one must look into the significance of the term acceptable as opposed to right. One could argue there may be a difference in what should be considered morally acceptable or morally understandable and what is morally right. In doing so we recognise that given the subjectivity or morality it is impossible to objectively identify, in black and white, whether an action is right or wrong. As such one could suggest the existence of several degrees between morally wrong, morally acceptable and morally right. As such, whilst an action may not be morally sound it may be seen as acceptable or understandable when one considers the perspectiveoftheindividualwhocommitstheact.One can explore this further through an example. If a father were to walk in on his child been molested by an intruder in his home and acted by beating the intruder to death one would struggle to argue the action was entirely morally right. Whilst the intruder was committing a serious offence many would take issue with the idea that the intruder was deserving of death. However, perhaps it could be argued that the actions of the father were morally acceptable or morally understandable. For instance, if one were to consider the situation objectively from the perspective of the father, would one do the same? For the purpose of our argument we will assumeadifferencedoesexistbetweenwhatismorallyrightandmorallyacceptable.