What Moral Obligation Do The Laws Of One 's Own Country?

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.

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?

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.

When it comes down to laws, it is really your own choice to determine; what’s the good way? Is it to obey or disobey? What is correct, what is incorrect? Questions like these go through people's minds right before they are about to act. The law is there obviously for people to follow, but that is not always the case.

There have been many people that have partaken in the act of not following, or breaking a law that they personally have deemed unjust throughout history, or taken part in civil disobedience . Socrates as well as Dr. Martin Luther King have done this. But the question of whether or not we should be required to follow a law that one personally believes is unjust is very hard to answer. Nevertheless, I believe that we should in fact be able to disobey a law and or a decision that we consider to be unjust. However, in saying this there are some guidelines that come with this. I am not saying that one should just have a complete disregard for the law, which would result in chaos and there would not be a civil society. Nonetheless, what I am

To what extent must our laws that which govern the people, change or adapt with the people? In an ever-progressing world is it feasible to rely on the same government that once lead our founding fathers? Is it even possible or reasonable for a nation to remain governed by the same laws that allowed slavery, unequal protection, and severely limited our rights of privacy? History has answered these questions for us: no. But before these changes even occurred, Thomas Jefferson asked the same question in regards to the laws of our land. After all, it was the inability of the long- standing British parliament to govern the people that lead to its colonial downfall, the Declaration of Independence, and creation of the United States. From these

       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

Upholding the law is the most important job of a government. In this social contract, citizens decide to reduce the freedoms that they have to become safer. A stable, safe society is able to constantly exist due to people following the law. When someone breaks the law, consequences are imposed upon them to preserve peace and to set an example.

Following laws and voting are two major responsibilities in which American’s are allowed. Laws are established for a reason and that is to keep American citizens safe. If we abide the country and state laws we are making an effort to try and better our nation. Simply, just following the rules that are set, make Americans fulfilling their responsibilities. Voting is another commodity that we sometimes overlook. Most countries are not diplomatic and do not get to vote on government leaders. Americans get to partake in the election process and they get to participate in deciding the country's fate with their vote. Voting and laws are useful and give more power to the American people.

Do we have a moral obligation to defy unjust laws? Individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and many others throughout history certainly thought so. However, I believe that laws exist for a reason. Despite their occasional faults, we should aspire to follow rules, even though we may not always agree with them. If we see flaws, we should address them through legal means like petitioning or voting. Resistance to laws is a detriment to a free society because it sets a bad example, can be ineffective, and raises problematic questions regarding what is right and what is wrong.

Respecting and following the laws that authority tries to enforce is a responsibility to any citizen of America. Almost every person breaks the law in America it doesn 't matter if it

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?

The citizens need law to know what behavior is socially and legally acceptable and to be able to deal consequences to those who do not follow the law. In any society laws must be obeyed for the good of its citizens. In a sense, obedience to the law is voluntary. At least in countries that enjoy freedom, citizens are permitted to carry on wit life’s activities, for the most part, as each sees fit. The citizens obey traffic laws because they should. Despite the criteria, they pay taxes because they should. However, they have freedom to decide including the decision to not obey laws.