Examples Of Being Morally Justified In Disobeying

"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."

Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? This moral question addresses what we commonly know as civil disobedience. In order to properly discuss civil disobedience and whether or not it is moral to disobey laws, we must first characterize civil disobedience. In Peter Singer's book, Practical Ethics he begins to characterize civil disobedience as arising from "ethical disagreement" and raising the question of whether "to uphold the law, even if the law protects and sanctions things we hold utterly wrong?" (Singer 292).

Disobeying a law naturally seems counter-intuitive to fixing a problem. This idea is very Socratic in nature. Socrates believed that it was a great disservice to the state to follow laws that were unjust. “I was attached to this city by the god . . . as upon a great and noble horse (the state in this case) which was sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred up by a kind of gadfly” (Apology, 30e, Plato). According to Socrates, “pursing virtue and truth in the name of the state” (Apology, 42a Plato) is necessary and actions such as civil disobedience are also necessary in order to find that virtue and truth at times. Both King and Socrates were “gadflies” in the sense that they were willing to question and bring tension to laws that were unjust and needed to be changed. This tension brings along the willingness to fix the laws and make them just. Settling for a “negative

There are also cases where law breaking becomes a compulsion, which is when it comes to life and death. The hierarchy of law should be taken into account. Saving somebody’s life is always of more importance than obeying civil laws. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, then illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern, saving the person’s life should and in such cases law breaking is most definitely justifiable.

While reading “The Crito” By Plato and Martin Luther King’s “Letters from a Birmingham Jail” I will use these two pieces of literature as a spring board to answer whether it is moral to break a law that you consider unjust. I will start first by analyzing Plato’s dialogue “The Crito”. The conversation takes place in a prison; this is where Socrates is awaiting his execution, and will be serving out the last days of his life. Socrates is visited by a long time follower and student, Crito. His reason for visiting is as simple as persuading Socrates to escape. He throws argument after argument at Socrates, and hoping that he will be able to convince his friend that he should flee the city. Socrates could not break the law just because he believed

"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.

     Any one can say that a law is unfair and unjust. However, who is really willing to accept the consequences for going against an unjust law? Is breaking this law really worth the punishment? The government is the one to decide whether a law is reasonable, but what if a member of the public believes that a law is not? Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different

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.

Libertarians support the view that people have free will and so we are free to make moral decisions. For a Libertarian, the key evidence for this is the act of decision making in our daily lives. Hume states that “experience is what we see to be true”, each human being experiences the feeling of being free to make a decision. If experiencing any other action constitutes it to be true, then why not the same for free will? Libertarians argue that we have awareness of the choices we make; we can choose to do anything that we are capable of. Though we are influenced by our environment and experiences, ultimately we can make our own decisions, nothing is

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.

Ultimately, if breaking the law gives the greater good more of an advantage in society than breaking the law is not unfair. If you look throughout history you will find many examples where laws were broken for the common good. When a government uses the very laws, it makes to unfairly suppress its people, then those people have every right to raise up against that. Yet, there are many cases where doing it for the good of all was just an excuse to cause trouble such as terrorism. However, utilitarianism also suggest we have an obligation to the state and its laws because they contribute more to human wellbeing than any alternative. Without a state life would be much as Hobbes said "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Thomas Hobbes (Author), 1982). Thus, the utilitarian argues, people's being will be greater within the state and its laws than without them. Hence, breaking the law is improper. Despite the fact, breaking the law is viewed as unreasonable perhaps it can be justified because individuals that go against the law are trying to prove a point. History has been made because people have broken the law. If certain people hadn't broken the law the world may not be the same way it is today for instance Martin Luther King and Corrie ten

Law and Punishment go hand in hand. There are Laws, which are the system of rules which a particular country or community recognises as regulating the actions of followers, and there are punishments, for when a member of said country/community breaks the rules. Punishment is defined as the infliction of a penalty or to cause pain for an offence. Most of the time it is not a choice as to whether you are part of a law-following community because almost all countries in the world have some kind of law-system and often the minute you turn the age where you are legally responsible or step off the boat, plane or train you are subjected to their laws.

An argument Rawls gives in favour of a moral obligation to support the law is that there is a moral duty to ‘support and further just institutions'. What is meant is that if a government is generally just and democratic, its laws should be obeyed in order to support and further them. The origin of the moral obligation is thus that just institutions should be helped and supported.

Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?