Can breaking the law ever be justified?

in Reiman 6). The law was broken on purpose, with a specific goal in mind; breaking the law does not happen by accident, nor is it justified.

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

"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.

Are a people ever justified in openly violating laws (like the Fugitive Slave Act) that they disapprove of and think immoral? What has been the fate of such laws in U.S. history? Should the majority always Rule I believe that if the law is so immoral that it causes harm you have an obligation to disobey. According to the law, it was the responsibility of the federal government to help owners recapture these runaway slaves, who were denied any legal means to try and fight their return to slavery. After the Fugitive Slave Law led to many conflicts between Northern abolitionists and Southern slave owners in the 1850s, the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War at the start of the next decade essentially rendered the law meaningless. Yes the majority

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.

Violation of laws was the first ingredient in making non-violence work because it showed how the people who were victimized by the laws really felt about the laws. Gandhi had to rebel against the laws when he wanted the Salt Laws to change; he wrote a letter saying “ if my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed….. To disregard the Salt Laws.”(Doc.1) While, Dr.King violated laws when he sat at a lunch counter, he claimed his purpose for doing it was “to bring the whole issue of racial injustice under the scrutiny of the conscience of Atlanta.”(Doc. 2) Lastly, Mandela broke some laws as well when he told his supporters “that volunteering (for the Defiance of Unjust Laws campaign) was a difficult

If a law is unjust, one cannot take fault or be punished if it goes against the law, for it is not a law at

There have been many people that have partaken in the act of not following, or breaking a law that they personally have deemed unjust throughout history, or taken part in civil disobedience . Socrates as well as Dr. Martin Luther King have done this. But the question of whether or not we should be required to follow a law that one personally believes is unjust is very hard to answer. Nevertheless, I believe that we should in fact be able to disobey a law and or a decision that we consider to be unjust. However, in saying this there are some guidelines that come with this. I am not saying that one should just have a complete disregard for the law, which would result in chaos and there would not be a civil society. Nonetheless, what I am

Many people break the rules on a daily basis, some do horrible things while many others break rules to attempt to allow themselves or others to live a better free life, there is a fine line between breaking rules for good reasons and breaking rules for bad reasons. Breaking laws or rules is okay, so long as it does not affect the wellbeing of others in a negative way, as long as whatever you are doing to break the law or rules is morally sound, benefits others, and you should break the rules for the right reasons.

It is ethical to disobey the law under certain circumstances. Examples of these circumstances would be when a law is unethical or immoral. The law could also be treating people unfairly or violating someone’s rights. You must also have a strong claim stating why the law is immoral or unethical.

I think in the event that somebody emphatically convictions that a law is vile and has justifiable reason motivation to trust it in this way, and then they shouldn't need to follow this law and to battle against it. As Dr. King said, “Oppressed people cannot remain oppressed forever, the urge for freedom will eventually come” (King, Letter from a Birmingham Jail). As I states previously, I agree with Martin Luther King Jr.’s view of just and unjust laws. I also agree that steps need to be taken toward changing unjust laws whether or not people want to take the risk and pay the price is up to them but for me if it was a cause (belief) I felt strongly about I would do what I could to help fight against the unjust law and be within my moral,

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?

Another argument for moral justification in breaking immoral laws can be extrapolated from J. Rawls' "Theory of Civil Disobedience". Rawls outlines circumstances in which we may be considered to be constitutionally justified in breaking laws, which we consider to be unjust and ergo immoral. In fact Rawls goes as far as to suggest that we can even be justified

Another important reason when is it right to break the rules is when it unfairly. One significant example is that from the text article title “Marriage is a Private Affair.” Nnaemeka rebel against the rules which mean he don’t listen to his dad and married someone else in the cosmopolitan atmosphere of the city not in the Ibo tribe where his dad live. In many countries, all over the world, there are