Being Morally Justified in Disobeying Laws We Consider to be Immoral
The answer to this question depends very much on our understanding and opinion on the status of the law. On this issue it is likely that everyone falls into one of two broad categories. People falling into the first of these categories would be those who consider that through social contract we are obliged to obey the law, whatever the law states and regardless of our opinion on the moral status of that law and that we are morally obliged to operate within the law. Furthermore by this way of thinking we can conclude that if the law binds us over to commit, what we consider to be an immoral act then we must be exempt from guilt as our morality dictates that we should obey the law regardless. Those who fall outside of this category would therefore believe that we are not bound over to obey the law and that in fact we should be morally obliged to disobey any law that we consider to be immoral. There is however a problem with this situation, in so much as it relies on appealing to a set moral code to justify our actions and such a moral code is merely an abstracted system of laws.
I believe that we can be morally justified in disobeying laws, which we consider to be immoral and there are several reasons for this. I believe that it is only possible to happily live in accordance with our own moral code, it may also be possible to live without too much dissatisfaction within the bounds of laws, which dictate a stricter moral code than our own. However I do not believe that it is possible to happily exist under a system of law whereby we are obliged at times to break our own code of morality. In this situation we are likely to find ourselves in a constant struggle ...
... middle of paper ...
...cation, after all why would we face both conscience and consequence when there is a choice between the two. Therefore it seems that if there are situations where we are legally justified in breaking the law then at those times we must also have found moral justification to do this as well.
I believe that we must be morally justified in disobeying laws, which we find immoral. If we obey such laws then we simply break our own code of morality and make ourselves immoral by our own standards. Not only this, but it is interesting to note that recent history has shown, in the case of retrospective legislation regarding Nazi war crimes, that our moral justification for breaking the law may later be legally vindicated.
Bibliography:
Rawls, J. (1977) 'A theory of civil disobedience' in R.M. Dworkin (ed.) The philosophy of law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
We have laws to keep us in check and consequences to follow if we don’t follow them. Plato’s theory on Benevolent Authority shows how external authorities try to see fair play. “Authorities can have their own agendas and these are not always consistent with cooperation and fair play (Fisher pg. 27).” We look at our authorities and usually don’t question them because we assume since they are higher up they know what they are doing and quite frankly we can’t do anything about it.
On the word of Martin Luther King Jr., “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the
Most can agree that in, most circumstances, these actions are evil, so it can be concluded that there are certain things that a person simply ought not to do. This is the foundation of C.S. Lewis’ Moral Law argument for the existence of God. Lewis argues that every person has a sense of right and wrong moral behavior, and this sense presses upon us. This is what he calls the Law of Human nature, or Moral Law. However, unlike other laws like gravity, this law can be disobeyed. In fact, despite the fact that all people are aware of this law, they constantly disobey
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
Markovits, Daniel. "Democratic disobedience." Yale Law Journal June 2005: 1897+. Criminal Justice Collection. Web. 29 Apr. 2014.
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
Is it ever acceptable to break the law? Answering this question leads to the consideration of the following: Should jurors enter a “not guilty” verdict, following their collective conscience, even when the evidence present should correctly lead to a “guilty Verdict”.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
Laws are sometimes weird and silly, people break laws all the time while they don’t even realize it. In Alabama it is illegal to have an ice cream cone in your back pocket at any time. Considering this, it is right to disobey the law when one’s conscience dictates him or her to do so as demonstrated by Dr. King, Nelson Mandela, and Henry David Thoreau. These historical men used the idea of unity, freedom, and peace to explain their messages across.
As a matter of fact, many of our government’s laws are connected with moral standards, such as speed limit, no alcohol while driving, fraud and murder. These laws are based on the moral standards that harm other lives is wrong. If there is no speed limit, people can drive as quickly as they want on the highway, the city would be ruined with car accident. If there is no limit of pollution, our earth would be ruined by noxious
It is very interesting to see that even though when someone breaks the law in the United States, they will still be protected by that very law. Even as one violates the rights of others, the law will make sure that their rights are protected. It almost seems that has more rights by breaking the law instead of following it. Police are prevented from using extreme force against them and lawyers are at the ready to serve these criminals. Criminals have forfeited their rights when they have violated the rights of others. Why should the law be so intent on protecting their rights, when they have no intent on following the law?
I believe laws is what determines what’s wrong and what’s right. Though, there are some people that might not agree with this. For example, a husband is stealing medicine for his sick wife and they’re poor but it’s the only way to save her. The husband still broke the laws but others felt he did right. That’s why there’s a phrase that says, “Sometimes you have to do the wrong thing for the right reason”.
----- "Civil Disobedience" from A World of Ideas - Essential Readings for College Readers, Lee A. Jacobus, Bedford Books, 1998, 1849(123 -146)
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.