Civil Disobedience: Are We Morally Obliged to Obey Unjust Laws?

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

Civil disobedience is defined as the “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in government policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means”; theories on this topic have been debated for centuries. (American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg161) Henry David Thoreau was well known for his refusal to participate in the political systems or activities of his era, not only by refusing to pay his poll taxes for six consecutive years, but also by announcing that he did not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau stresses the need to prioritize one’s conscience over the dictates of laws. A person should not be obligated to devote his or her life to eliminating evils from the world, but is only obligated not to participate in such evils themselves. He argues that the government rarely proves itself useful and this derives from the power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate views. Justice is the quality of being just, impartial or fair. Thoreau doubted the effectiveness of reform within the government, and argued that voting and petitioning for change served useless. He felt that justice had different standards for each different group. Which raises the question, is justice fair for everyone? When a government is unjust, people should

”Unjust law is no law at all.” In face of unjust laws, merely tolerance and obeying could be detrimental not only to personal rights but also to the well-being of the society. Therefore, it is indeed every people’s responsibility to disobey or even resist them. As we know during the sixties of America a number of citizens decided not to obey the law which itself is unjust and wrong any longer. Without their resistance, there wouldn’t have been the civil rights movement, anti-war

“Shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? (Thoreau 184).” The choice of acting upon unjust laws is up to the person whether they want to follow with what they believe is morally right no matter the consequences. Thoreau, for example, was arrested for not paying poll taxes for six years. Thoreau peacefully served his time in his night in jail, having known beforehand the consequences for his actions, yet he went along and committed the crime. Even though the crime Thoreau committed didn’t harm anyone, it made a general statement to what he stood for, that government cannot change his beliefs and make him follow laws that are unjust to him. “When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society.(Thoreau

     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

When your human rights are being stripped, it is a great way to change society, as we see in Gandhi’s peaceful revolt. However, in many cases it is not necessary. It would do even more damage, especially if there are other, safer and more human ways for addressing concerns. Laws would be threatened as well as American infrastructure and economy. Through this, civil disobedience requires us to examine the situation. It requires intelligent people to sacrifice something for the greater good, and when it is necessary. The people thinking about disobeying must ask the question “is the law I am being pushed under unjust?” before performing the act. As Gandhi once said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and

Brilliantly put by what many deem to be America’s greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. Although many may argue that this is the sole way to keep the government in check and to make minorities heard, rational people will realize that it is not this disrespect of the law that proves the democracy of our nation.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so." -Thomas Jefferson

As a citizen, one often faces the moral dilemma of whether to abide by the laws they disagree or whether not to. The Crito, written by Plato, and Civil Disobedience, written by Henry David Thoreau, explain and defend their claims on what to do when one encounters this moral dilemma. The Crito argues that one should not break the laws because to break one law is to break all of the laws. Civil Disobedience argues that majorities should not determine whether to make the people of a society follow a law, but ones conscience should determine whether they should follow the laws. The Crito is correct in the fact that one should follow the laws because they are laws, and if broken, essentially all of them are broken; the laws are put in place to conduct society and one does not get to pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones not to.

Disobedience has been a man’s virtue ever since laws have been constructed. As a progression that has developed in our society , it is safely to indicate that disobedience is morally acceptable by the common people. In order for change, people have demonstrated  disobedience successfully to promote social progress, change is impossible without disobedience.Our society has failed to realize that there is no such thing a “perfect society”. There are people in our society who agree with change and would sacrifice themselves for it through violence and multiple times of rejection. Many individuals known as the majority simply do not like change. This majority is the group that construct these laws that we must follow.  Thoreau states ,” A majority is permitted , and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are mostly likely right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority,  but because they are physically the strongest.” Although we do perceive the system as the strongest, citizens still use disobedience to challenge the system’s authority. Disobedience is a man’s virtue when our natural rights are being violated by the majority . In order for change to occur the common people must use disobedience to fight the injustice in their society to promote social progress.

"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.

‘Must we only obey a just law; should we obey a law because it is just to do so; or else can we not obey at all?'

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?