You express a great deal of anxiety over our willingness to break laws. This is certainly a legitimate concern. Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, at first glance it may seem rather paradoxical for us consciously to break laws. One may well ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all."
2 Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber,
Frank Trippett writes about how everybody breaks minor laws on a day-to-day basis. He says that these people are a major threat to our social order just as much as major criminals are. I agree with Frank Trippett's analysis on Americans breaking the law, written in "A Red Light for Scofflaws." Trippett is correct when he suggests that more and more Americans are breaking laws every day, because I see people breaking many laws on a daily basis. Everywhere I go, people around me are breaking the laws like running red lights and speeding and breaking other laws that they do not want to follow. I do believe that ordinary law-abiding citizens are breaking more and more laws, somewhat flirting with the concept of rebellion. I disagree however with
"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.
King brings in the question, what is a just and unjust law? A just law is one that promotes good morals and is followed by both the majority as well as the minority of society. Martin Luther King Jr. defines an unjust law as:
In a society governed by sometimes strict and sometimes barely acknowledged laws, we tend to turn a blind eye towards incidents where the law is supposed to swoop in and save the day. Take, for example, the Reconstruction era after the civil war from 1865-1877, when America tried to rebuild its country and bridge the gap between the north and south after the divisive war. White supremacy leagues were created and allowed to exist by the government during that time because the law did not do its job by protecting all its citizens. It didn’t enforce the acceptance of the free African-Americans and didn’t encourage much, or any social change. I believe that laws are not the most important factor in overcoming discrimination and creating social
Segregation is the act of discriminating against others because of their race. The act of Segregating is morally wrong. Racism executes appalling feats. This is because it slows down the development of countries, and brings out the worst in people.
Growing up, we have it drilled into our heads that we should always follow the rules, and never break the law. From parents, realatives, teachers, and generally any adult do we hear these messages. I guess I took all of that advice to heart, because I try to always follow the rules, and obey the law. Most of my peers however, do not listen to what their seniors told them as children. As a child, laws seem like the foundation that civilization was supported by. If someone does something that wrongs another person, they are punished. Sounds like a good idea, right?
The use of just laws was first abided by Dr. King in his “Letter From Birmingham Jail.” In this letter, he mentions the necessity of just laws in society and how individuals are morally obliged to follow them. He also makes a clear distinction between “just” and “unjust” laws, further advocating his beliefs. Dr. King defines the two different laws in his interpretation of what they actually mean in society. A just law is a human-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. In other words, a law that can uplift the personality of an individual is a law that is just. Also, citizens also have their moral responsibility in a constitutional democratic society to obey and abide by the laws of the country. In comparison to just
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.
Martin Luther King’s views came from his letter that he wrote in jail. That letter was called “Letter from a Birmingham Jail [King, Jr.].” In this letter, he talks about the law's, justification, and nonviolent. Martin Luther King claims that there are two types of laws just and unjust laws. He believes in the just laws, and he would be one of the first to follow them. Also that an individual has a right and a moral right to perform these just laws as well. There is a difference between just and unjust laws. A Just law is made code that contains moral law and or the law of the God. While the unjust law is a law that doesn’t include any moral law.
“Millions of Americans who would never think of themselves as lawbreakers, let alone criminals, are taking increasing liberties with all sorts of ‘minor’ laws that are nonetheless designed to protect and nourish society”(Trippett). Frank Trippett in his excerpt, “A Red Light for Scofflaws” argues that many people each day are breaking minor laws but do not think much about it because it does not seem like a big deal. The author supports his claim by stating that citizens believe that if breaking the small law does not harm anything, than it should not be a huge dispense. He continues by revealing that people continue to break the law because they are not getting caught and it does not affect the society around them. The author’s purpose is
In the words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.” In his groundbreaking speech “Letter from Birmingham Jail” in the first paragraph he stated that morally you can only obey just laws and break unjust laws to make them just. He broke down the compared difference made legal and sameness made legal. Difference made legal is when a majority group makes a law that minorities are expected to follow but that they will not follow themselves, like for example the Jim Crow laws. Sameness made legal is when a majority group makes a law for minorities that they also intend to follow (King paragraph 3). In Ferguson, Missouri a pattern of practicing unlawful conduct violating civilians first, fourth, and fourteenth amendment rights was established. African americans were 2 times more plausible to get searched than whites but possessed 26% less than whites in the contraband found. In the year of 2016 black and hispanic drivers in Chicago, Illinois were stopped and searched at rates 4 times the rates of white drivers. San Francisco police officers were caught sending racial text and staging fights in prisons and placing bets on the inmates. Black americans are 15% of all stops in San Francisco, over 42% of these stops are followed by non consent
The word lawbreaking is usually associated with people who have committed a crime or simply broke the law. To people today, the word lawbreaking is usually visualized with crimes such as robberies, vandalism, assault, and so on. Crimes like J-walking, littering, speeding, and noise pollution are usually ignored. Frank Trippett, author of “A Red Light For Scofflaws”, believes that people today are taking advantage of their liberties by casually breaking the law, which disrupts social order. I agree with Trippet’s argument because everyday people are skirting the law that is designed to protect and keep order in society.
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?
When people aren't following the law it doesn't mean that they are doing something that could harm someone; it could be something that wouldn't have no harm no foul. When you don’t follow every law it doesn't make you a bad person. I don't believe everyone follows every law because there are too many laws that we don't really know. Breaking a law that has done no harm doesn't make you a bad person.