Obligated To Obey The Government If The Law Is Unjust

Laws are enforced to provide our society with safety, boundaries, protection of rights, and overall justice. The United States Constitution and Bill of Rights were established years ago to reduce the tensions and conflicts of our newly founded nation. It sought out to accomplish this by providing justice through an equal voice for all citizens. However, this equal voice for justice more often times than not is squandered and diminished. Things such as race, religion, and culture often times blur the lines of the law and fair outcomes in a court. Individuals feel that their beliefs are more important than the protection of rights and the deliverance of law or the law itself cannot go outside of its limitations to provide justice. This is apparent in the court cases of Marbury v Madison, Plessy v Ferguson, and the book To Kill a Mocking Bird by Harper Lee. These cases clearly exemplify that the law does not always provide justice, although it endeavors to do so.

Do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? In the following composition, I am going to examine the answer to this question in accordance to what Socrates believes. The best way to understand this almost “WWSD” (What Would Socrates Do) approach is by looking at Socrates' actions in the three Platonic dialogues we have read. These dialogues bring forth three possible bases for why Socrates believes one should obey the law. First, that there is a distinction between the the “justness” of a law and how that law is applied. Second, that if one willingly accepts living in a

"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."

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

“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

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.

Sure, the government makes us do all sorts of things: serve on juries, pay taxes, have a driver?s license. When the government requires possession of a driver?s license it is for our own security, to make sure that only those who are capable to drive are on the road. When we are being asked to serve on jury, it is for our interest as well. As a society, we get to take a part in a legal decision and make sure that justice is done in our country. Even the requirement to pay taxes eventually is for our interest. The tax money helps the government to do things for us as a society, such as financing culture events, helping elders and people in need. However, asking us to risk our lives for something that not all citizens believe worth fighting for is not in our interest. People should not be forced to enlist in the army, which is one reason why we should not reinstate the military draft. In other words, since we live in a country based on freedom, the government should not take away our right to decide if we want to fight or not. We should not be forced to fight a war. We should not be forced into the meat grinder and possibly killed

The United States of America is a country that was founded on the idea that all citizens would have equal rights and freedoms. For the protection of the people, and to maintain order, law has been developed over time. Rights advocates are constantly pushing the boundaries of what the law should, or should not be. Individual-rights and public-order advocates are in a battle of balance, leaving the justice system to decide what the best solution is for all.

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.

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

It is a well-known fact that the government makes laws that benefit it, and sometimes to the detriment of the average citizen. Take, for example, the tax laws. You would be hard pressed to find a taxpayer who believes that paying taxes is fair. In fact most people would complain that they pay taxes all year by having an amount held out from their check, only to owe additional monies every April 15. This form of governmental taking is probably the most popular, but there are other actions that result in a private citizen losing their property to a governmental agency. However not every instance of a taking leaves the average citizen without a remedy, and in some instances not every instance of taken results in the person having less than when

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

‘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?'