Argumentative Essay: When Breaking The Law Is Justifiable

One of the most important purposes of laws in the world is just to prevent that nothing bad happens to us, for example how a society could survive without traffic driving laws? It is impossible, we need to have rules that shows us the way we have to drive, the signs we need to respect, the light we need to observe, when to stop and when we should pass, and the consequences of breaking the laws.

"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."

Imagine that you are an everyday average joe. Just walking down the street, all of a sudden a man bumps into you, no big deal. But then he gets very angry and gives you a solid kick to your stomach. The police are called and it was bad enough you go to court. He receives a bail and no jail time. You can't even walk in that area for the mental fear of what could happen to you. The next day you are reading the news and an incident in your area catches your eye, a college student kicked a cat. You figured that since the man who did a similar thing to you, received no jail time and a quick court session, the same will happen. You thought wrong, there is a social outrage everywhere, people call for jail time and it the number of court hearings goes up and up. But why should someone go to jail for something and not for another because the victim was a cat and not a human? Why is a cat's life worth more to the people than a man's? Someone should not go to jail for kicking a cat because there are bigger things that require the court's full attention. And the fact that things on the internet are taken very far proportion to what they really are, and the fact that the line for things called animal abuse is a very much grayed area.

All through history governments and empires have been overthrown or defeated primarily by the violence of those who oppose them. This violence was usually successful however, there have been several situations, when violence failed, that protesters have had to turn to other methods. Non-violent protesting never seemed to be the right course of action until the ideology of Mohandas Gandhi spread and influenced successful protests across the world. Non-violent methods were successfully used, most notably, by Mohandas Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Mandela.

Fighting for rights does not have to be violent. Mother Jones fought for child labor laws, Cesar Chavez fought for migrant workers’ rights, and Gandhi fought for independence from Britain. Mother Jones, Cesar Chavez, and Mahatma Gandhi all helped to enact change by using peaceful methods to get their points across.

"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.

Fighting for rights doesn’t have to be violent. Mother Jones fought for child labor laws, Cesar Chavez fought for migrant workers’ rights, and Gandhi fought for independence from Britain. Mother Jones, Cesar Chavez, and Mahatma Gandhi all helped to enact change by using peaceful methods to get their points across.

Martin Luther King used the same idea of unjust laws to justify his actions and nonviolent campaigns. He used this idea to answer the question of how he can support the breaking of some laws, but not others? His simple answer was that there are two types of laws, just and unjust, and "an unjust law is no law at all." (80). He goes on to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, ."..Any law that uplifts personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." (80) and says that any individual that breaks an unjust law and accepts the punishment of imprisonment actually has the "highest respect for the law." (81). King makes a very strong point in distinguishing just and unjust laws to advocate his actions, just like Stanton and Anthony do in their address.

Throughout history and in today’s society, people have always done what they felt to be right. In Henry David Thoreau “Civil Disobedience” he stated “The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right.” Although doing what you believe to be right may feel right, it’s not always the best decision in all situations. There are many situations where doing what you feel to be right can benefit you, but can affect others negatively. Thoreau believed that following the law, created by most of the people can be morally and socially wrong. A person should not feel it is their obligation to follow a law they don’t believe in; that would be giving up their individual consciences. People should always do what they personally believe is right.

Laws are necessary part of a government. Government serves as system that can provide services and order which the people can pick their respentace. Now imagine a law that help protect you, your race, ideas, sexual orientation and so forth. Now imagine a group of people or even organization who are against you views. To a certain point to even hurt or murder your ideas. Like any government laws are place to protect the people and that’s what hate crime laws are. Too protect citizens no matter their race and choices. But that doesn’t seem to be the case always. In article by .

Growing up, we have it drilled into our heads that we should always follow the rules, and never break the law. From parents, realatives, teachers, and generally any adult do we hear these messages. I guess I took all of that advice to heart, because I try to always follow the rules, and obey the law. Most of my peers however, do not listen to what their seniors told them as children. As a child, laws seem like the foundation that civilization was supported by. If someone does something that wrongs another person, they are punished. Sounds like a good idea, right?

Breaking the law is morally justifiable and acceptable when the law in itself is iniquitous and if that law violates human rights and conscience; Certainly, rules are established for us to follow but we as human beings should be able to differentiate the right and the wrong and incase laws need to be violated for the right cause even with hard consequences, breaking the law can be justified; considering the situations and the purposes.

There are many examples of civil disobedience. One of which is the story about Cesar Chavez. Along with how he stated The United Farm Workers

In the United States there are a ton of freedoms but some people abuse their freedoms and use laws that in certain circumstances they are correct but in other cases it is morally unjust;for example if someone is rear ended by a driver behind them

When people aren't following the law it doesn't mean that they are doing something that could harm someone; it could be something that wouldn't have no harm no foul. When you don’t follow every law it doesn't make you a bad person. I don't believe everyone follows every law because there are too many laws that we don't really know. Breaking a law that has done no harm doesn't make you a bad person.