Natural Duty To Obey The 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).

”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

I argue that people have the duty refuse a government that is corrupt, and distance themselves from these unjust institutions. A person does not necessarily have to work to eliminate unjust practices, but definitely has the duty to disagree with any kind of those actions they see, and not to participate in such acts. The individual has an important responsibility in showing clear criticism towards unjust institutions. It may seem like the society will become unstable if this concept is followed, because a society might not be able to function when everybody believed that man is first and the subject is afterwards. Even though this principle is debatable if it becomes universalized, this does not mean that it But, even if Thoreau's principle does become implausible when universalized, does this mean that it cannot affect all people’s action. This action of placing morality before law can be practiced by those who understand their individual duty to be

This preludes to his contents that one of the American citizens obligations is to follow their moral code and not follow the laws set by the dominant group. He also feels that the people should distant from the government in general when they become unjust. While offering a moral appeal to his audience, he as well provides a logical advance to support and justify his advocacy for civil

If all people acted virtuously, the govt would not be necessary, but since people square measure capable of constructing mistakes, the govt. is vital to the protection of life and property. The government's elementary purpose,

It is this principle that gives people the liberty to do as they please, granted they do not infringe on others’ rights; and it is this right that gives people the liberty to disobey the law if their conscience does not allow them to abide by it. Civil disobedience is the exercise of that liberty, the conscience-driven decision to do something both illegal and moral. Indeed, civil disobedience is the most admirable exercise of freedom—the doing of what one believes to be just, and the refusal to do what one believes to be unjust. Lacking this exercise of conscience, individuals are reduced to mere automatons in service of government policy. As Henry David Thoreau, a pacifist and writer arrested for refusing to pay a poll tax going towards the Mexican-American War, wrote in his 1849 essay Civil Disobedience, “the mass of men serve the state…not as men mainly, but as machines….In

In State of Nature, where voluntary consent has yet to be established, disagreements are frequent. Every man believes their rights are more important than another’s, which leads to this quarrelling. Yes, it is true, everyone is endowed with their natural rights and has the right to defend them because no one has the right to take away someone else’s natural rights. “Hence, in the state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property, or liberty: nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him…” On the contrary, this chaos brought on by two people trying to settle an argument their own way leads to dysfunction. This chaos is why we need government, so that we may have a unified, known set of laws for society to settle disagreements with. “If life, liberty and property could be enjoyed as great perfection in solitude, as in society, there would be no need of government. But the experience of ages has proved that such is the nature of man, weak, imperfect being…” Men are selfish and weak in nature, we need something to unite for success us while still protecting individual’s natural rights. This uniting force is government.

At an early age, most children are taught to obey the law. However, many children are also told to follow their conscience. Certain incidents can cause these views to conflict. According to figures like Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, breaking the law is justified when one’s conscience dictates him or her to do so if it is for justice, freedom, and it is non-violent.

In their mind, if they were in a state of nature then they would not have to abide by such laws. As John Locke pointed out, we all are here for the preservation of mankind. We make these sacrifices for protection and, in the end, not only benefit the individual but also benefit the community, society, or nation. (Locke, pgs. 170-171, 180-186). So each citizen, in order to (in Abraham Lincoln’s word’s) form a more perfect union, must make certain sacrifices which in the end, not only helps you but helps others, this is one of our responsibilities as citizens. Finally, in regards to this paragraph, someone who DOES fulfill his or her responsibilities, are good citizens, but that is not the whole definition of a good citizen, it is simply one part of a bigger picture.

       Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect

The “law of nature is a set of rights that all humans should have.” (Total Philosophy) By this means it shows how people should work together instead of going against one another for their own selfish reasonings. A government helps people from using their self-serving ideas. It creates a bottom ground for everyone to follow.

In that vein, there exists natural competition between men over food and other necessities, and although the stronger may yield temporary power over the weaker in an individual situation, the power is neither absolute nor permanent. All men have both a responsibility and a right to enforce the law of nature, and therefore punish those who break it. “That in the State of Nature, every one has the Executive Power of the Law of Nature.” (Locke, Second Treatise, II.13). Equality is maintained.

An argument Rawls gives in favour of a moral obligation to support the law is that there is a moral duty to ‘support and further just institutions'. What is meant is that if a government is generally just and democratic, its laws should be obeyed in order to support and further them. The origin of the moral obligation is thus that just institutions should be helped and supported.

Law and morality work together to guide our behavior; while law does it by punishing us if we do something wrong, morality does it through incentives. In their articles, both H.L.A Hart in “Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals,” and Lon Fuller’s reply to professor Hart in “Positivism and Fidelity to Law,” discuss the concept of law post world war II Germany and their re-imagining of natural law as put forth by Gustav Radbruch’s theory. In this paper, I hope to show how both law and morality is needed to create just rules, more specifically drawing from the “grudge informer” case mentioned in Hart’s article. First, I will explain the dilemma of the “grudge informer” case and the contradicting theory laid down by Radbrunch’s.

A state is sovereign when its magistrate owes allegiance to no superior power, and he or she is supreme within the legal order of the state. It may be assumed that in every human society where there is a system of law there is also to be found, latent beneath the variety of political forms, in a democracy as much as in a absolute monarchy, a simple relationship between subjects rendering habitual obedience, and a sovereign who renders obedience to none. This vertical structure, of sovereign and subjects, according to this theory, is analogous to the backbone of a man. The structure constitutes an essential part of any human society which possesses a system of law, as the backbone