Why Is It Ethical To Disobey Law

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

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

"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."

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

Martin Luther King jr. justified rebellion and civil disobedience in one statement. The statements King makes can be thought of as being contradictory. He rationalized this by answering this question,““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

In South Africa Gandhi was exposed to a level of racism that he had never experienced before. He was not allowed to wear his turban in a courtroom and he was not allowed to ride in the same cars as Europeans on the trains. While traveling to by train to Pretoria, he was asked to leave his seat for the van compartment. He refused and was kicked off the train.8 To get to his destination, he found a stagecoach going to Pretoria. He was not allowed to sit in the coach-box with the white passengers, but was forced to sit with the coachman. Later, he was asked to give up his seat to sit on the floorboard. Gandhi would not agree to this injustice. And, although he received a beating for it, he remained in his seat.9 These incidents led Gandhi to decide to fight for the rights of Indian workers in South Africa.

There are also cases where law breaking becomes a compulsion, which is when it comes to life and death. The hierarchy of law should be taken into account. Saving somebody’s life is always of more importance than obeying civil laws. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, then illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern, saving the person’s life should and in such cases law breaking is most definitely justifiable.

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

‘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?'

Ultimately, if breaking the law gives the greater good more of an advantage in society than breaking the law is not unfair. If you look throughout history you will find many examples where laws were broken for the common good. When a government uses the very laws, it makes to unfairly suppress its people, then those people have every right to raise up against that. Yet, there are many cases where doing it for the good of all was just an excuse to cause trouble such as terrorism. However, utilitarianism also suggest we have an obligation to the state and its laws because they contribute more to human wellbeing than any alternative. Without a state life would be much as Hobbes said "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" (Thomas Hobbes (Author), 1982). Thus, the utilitarian argues, people's being will be greater within the state and its laws than without them. Hence, breaking the law is improper. Despite the fact, breaking the law is viewed as unreasonable perhaps it can be justified because individuals that go against the law are trying to prove a point. History has been made because people have broken the law. If certain people hadn't broken the law the world may not be the same way it is today for instance Martin Luther King and Corrie ten

There were times in history when breaking the law was justified: great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.

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).

"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.

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?