Breaking The Law Should Not Be Broken

Regarding Socrates view one should not obey the law just because it is the law. As I said before you have two choices, but one of them is the moral option. We say that it is moral, as it was taught to us this way, but one doesn’t really think about their own opinion in reference to it.

Do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? In the following composition, I am going to examine the answer to this question in accordance to what Socrates believes. The best way to understand this almost “WWSD” (What Would Socrates Do) approach is by looking at Socrates' actions in the three Platonic dialogues we have read. These dialogues bring forth three possible bases for why Socrates believes one should obey the law. First, that there is a distinction between the the “justness” of a law and how that law is applied. Second, that if one willingly accepts living in a

"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

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

Part of this ties into the fact that Socrates convinces not only his followers but to the jury that contrary to popular belief, he knows nothing. At the beginning of the Apology, he states that “I am wiser than this human being. For probably neither of us knows anything noble and good, but he supposes he knows something when he does not know, while I, just as I do not know, do not even suppose that I do. I am likely to be a little bit wiser than he in this very thing: that whatever I do not know, I do not even suppose I know”. (21d). His humility and modesty are outwardly distinguishably from this very speech alone. If one feels as if they do not have the abilities to rebel against the laws of the land by way of committing political atrocities, they are more than likely to a.) avoid rebellion and b.) respect the laws. Respecting the laws is the exact principle that Socrates stood by. Even if Socrates knew nothing as he claimed, what he did know was that obligation to the law was fundamental. Though he didn’t know anything, he knew that authority for the law was the foundation of a prosperous

It is natural for most people to obey the law, because of the consequences that come with it. Socrates is stuck in prison, and his friend Crito came to bail him out. Instead of happily following Crito, Socrates interrogated his friend to why this was a good idea. The laws are there for a reason, and breaking them could not end well. Socrates does not believe in breaking the laws; he states several reasons why it is important to follow them.

"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.

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

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.

In Plato’s Crito, Socrates talks about his obligations to follow the law. Although Socrates understands that the Athenian democracy has committed an unjust action by sentencing him to death, he is unwilling to escape with Crito. He understands that an injustice should not be answered with injustice, but there are times when one should question the law. In Socrates’ Defense and the Crito, Plato discusses when one ought to follow the law and when ought to not follow the law. One not only has the obligations to follow the law, but they are also obliged to break the law if it is unjust because it will then improve The Law.

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

Socrates informs his friend that one should only care about the opinion of sensible people; that are willing to see things for what they are and how those things turn out. “But why, my dear Crito, should we care about the opinion of the many? Good men, and they are the only persons who are worth considering, will think of these things truly as they happened” (44C) Crito wants his friend to realize that sometimes the popular opinion is more powerful and any even more dangerous. The public has an unlimited capacity for doing harm to others and his trail/sentencing will be proof of this. Socrates doesn’t see it that way and disagrees with his friend, the public had the power of doing good. Socrates believes that the public doesn’t make the man right or wrong.