Benefits Of Breaking The Law

"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

However, breaking the law is not always justified. Vigilantism and Terrorism are two major issues where groups or individuals claim to be providing justice or freedom. Vigilantes like the Ku Klux Klan are basically extremists who try to bring justice by exterminating wrong doers, while in doing so they are violating greater laws. To some they are freedom fighters and to others they are terrorists. Other extremists like the Jihadists are even worse; they conduct violent bombings and self sacrifices in the name of religion destroying innocent lives along

Law, principles, and regulations are established in a community in order to create peace and order for the people. But is every law placed- morally correct? Is there anytime when breaking an unjust law is acceptable? Through Sophocles novel, Antigone, he illustrates to his audience regarding to breaking an unjust law and that no matter how high a ruler might see himself as, the Gods will always be stronger and higher than the mortals. He designs one of the first examples of a conscientious objector, Antigone, one who breaks a law that is, to her, unjust. Defying Creon’s law with her beliefs that god's law overrules man's law, she goes against him by burying the body of her deceased brother, Polynices. In spite of the fact that Antigone knew the consequences that had the power to threaten her life, she still decided to honor her brother’s memory and satisfy the gods. When being captured by the guards she had not deny the fact that she was indeed burying Polynices, in fact she stated that she did and took the consequence, even though her life was at risk. To her burying her brothers body meant more than her own life, restoring moral balance and satisfying the gods led her to disregard a law created by man. Many should consider that breaking an unjust law is not wrong, a law that is morally unjust. The law was created to protect the people and their beliefs, yet as we see through the three Theban plays we learn that one's beliefs and morals go against the law, but it's not the

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

Socrates argues that it’s unjust to break the law even if people think the law is wrong because those are merely opinions. He believes that one should never harm others and breaking the law is going against the government and compared it to a child disobeying his parents. He will never go against the foundation of the state and government. He provides three reasons to defend the state: “the state is responsible for the very existence of the individual, parents wouldn’t have met and children would never have been bored”, the state nurtures and aids in building one’s character by providing no education, books, writing or culture, the state establishes law and order and without it, there would be no justice”.

"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.

Honestly though, I would not want to break the law even if it were unjust unless it was greatly affecting my family or the people I care about because I would rather not risk going to jail or losing everything that I have. There 's also the fear of losing respect and not being able to find a job. In Henry David Thoreau 's essay "Civil Disobedience," he says, "I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only..." ("Civil Disobedience", 12). After going to jail he had lost the people around him, they no longer treated him the same. He did not commit a violent crime, he just refused to pay his taxes and was labeled a criminal. If his friends could treat him differently because of that, then imagine how employers would look at him. But, if there were ever a time when I needed to break a law to protect my family

The first example I used was the situation of racism and segregation in schools for the Japanese. After a brutal war between Japan and Russia, conflict and divisions were created between the Japanese Americans and the Americans. Then, people in San Francisco began to segregate children in schools and show prejudice towards the Japanese. Eventually, Americans demanded a law saying not to allow Japanese laborers into America. The Japanese also wanted this cruel punishment put onto the Japanese Americans to stop. Someone had to prevent this from becoming a war. This shows the answer to the question because, President Theodore Roosevelt made The Gentlemen’s Agreement of 1907. However, this only helped America because it was never passed by Congress

Envision if everyone in the world decided to go around breaking laws because they did not agree with them. There would be a bunch of unnecessary arrests, great amount of violence, and the world would be a terrible place to live. As citizens of this country we have the commitment to adhere to the rules, laws, and submit to any consequences we may receive. In the great words of Socrates, “One should never do wrong in return, nor do any man harm, no matter what he may have done to you.” Breaking laws is never morally justifiable.

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.

To Socrates laws only have meaning because the people give them meaning and only by following the laws do we see the actual value of them. According to Socrates the relationship of the people and the states are like that of a child and their parents. He claims that state raises the people by guiding them with laws giving them order and educates the people of what’s right and what’s wrong. Socrates does not believe in disobeying the law to set examples as you would not disobey your parents just to prove a point. Socrates is appreciative for what state has done for him and feels as if it is his duty and obligation to repay them or show gratitude to the state by following its laws.

Socrates, however, was not trying to make the youth go against the laws. In fact, Socrates told his followers that they should live by the laws because the laws were needed. As in the Crito, Socrates mentions that to go against the laws would be the wrong thing to do. The society of Athens, made laws for the people to follow. These laws were made to keep order. Socrates understood and respected that the laws

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?