Persuasive Essay On Breaking The Law

"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).

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

Illegal immigration has become more of an important issue in the United States since Donald Trump’s campaign for president in 2016. Immigration can be known as the act of people crossing national borders to live permanently in other countries. It becomes illegal when they cross those borders without the legal right to be in those countries. The U.S. has been an immigrant country since the pilgrims in the 1600s and has ever since, been diverse. Most of the immigrants are Latinos that come from Central America, but they also come from all over the world. The current path to legal citizenship is flawed and needs to be reformed to allow rights to be upheld, equal and fair treatment of all applicants, and to facilitate the process altogether.

"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.

Are a people ever justified in openly violating laws (like the Fugitive Slave Act) that they disapprove of and think immoral? What has been the fate of such laws in U.S. history? Should the majority always Rule I believe that if the law is so immoral that it causes harm you have an obligation to disobey. According to the law, it was the responsibility of the federal government to help owners recapture these runaway slaves, who were denied any legal means to try and fight their return to slavery. After the Fugitive Slave Law led to many conflicts between Northern abolitionists and Southern slave owners in the 1850s, the outbreak of the U.S. Civil War at the start of the next decade essentially rendered the law meaningless. Yes the majority

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.

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.

What is prohibition? Prohibition is the prevention, by law, of the manufacture and sale of most forms of alcohol. By 1830, Americans over the age of 15 consumed on average 88 bottles of whiskey per year. Prohibition was first tried in 1851. It was repealed several years later after opposition and riots. Along the way, one leader who had attempted to enforce prohibition in the 1830’s, was a woman named Carry Nation. She was part of a group called the Women’s Christian Temperance Union. She would guide a group of women dry crusaders to attack private property and destroy items within bars and saloons. She attacked using her trademarked hatchet and while carrying the Bible. Others citizens formed, in 1893, the Anti-Saloon League. They would remind legislators and other officials that opposing their organizations agenda, based on the law, was a risk to their career.

Many people would probably say that if they saw an injured person, they would stop to help them. When put in the situation, however, would they actually stop? The United States of America does not require that pedestrians, who are not involved, help the ones who are. This is no excuse not to help, though. Even helping in just a small way could save a life.

Just Say No.” This phrase was uttered in 1982 by Nancy Reagan, the first lady of the United States, in response to a schoolgirl’s question of what she should do if offered drugs (Weinraub A5). These words became the slogan for a nationwide substance abuse prevention program that followed the then recently enacted drug policies intended to discourage the manufacture, sale, and use of illicit drugs in the United States. These zero tolerance policies carried harsh penalties and strict enforcement for all drug related offenses. Almost four decades later, these policies are still in effect, as is their focus on criminalization as a means to reduce the availability and usage of drugs. Their ineffectiveness is evidenced by the facts that drug use rates have remained steady over the past four decades and incarceration rates have exponentially rose during that same period. I believe that a new course of action should be taken, and a bold new drug policy should be enacted. Decriminalization would result in a substantial decrease of the prison population, relieve the unnecessary burden that has been placed on our criminal justice system, shift the paradigm from drug enforcement to drug treatment, reduce the health risk of HIV, AIDS, and heroin related deaths; and provide unprecedented benefits from the regulation of the manufacturing and sales of substances that are currently illegal.

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?

Kim Harrison say that “ Breaking rules isn't bad when what you're doing is more important than the rule itself.” In discussion of rebellion, one controversial issue has been showing that everyone's bewilderment. On the one hand, people argued that it is unsuitable to infringe the rules. On the other hand, people demonstrate that it is justified to contravene the rules. However, I believe that it is right to break the rules when it support a cause you believe in, unfairly and understandable.

Ethics and law do not always go hand in hand. Not every law is ethical, and even if a law is considered ethical on its surface, it may result in unethical outcomes. "Ethics refers to well-founded standards of right and wrong that prescribe what humans ought to do, usually in terms of rights, obligations, benefits to society, fairness, or specific virtues.”