I believe it is safe to say that the subjects of any legitimate state have an obligation to at obey their governing bodies. Underlying my own obedience to my country's laws are a number of reasons - an understanding of my obligation to take responsibility for my own actions, a recognition of my government's authority over me, a belief that the laws of my country are well-founded, and a fear of the consequences of disobeying said laws. Without laws, a society would quickly crumble into disorder and chaos, unless its entire population is benevolent and selfless. And since my beliefs about human nature run contrary to the idea that we all want what is best for each other, I don't believe that said chaos can be avoided without a respected set of laws. Laws are, in large part, put into place to protect every individual's rights, freedoms, and safety. It is my belief that this obligation is conditional though, and that there exist justified reasons for breaking the law in a number of circumstances.
Effectively, I believe in a prima facie obligation to obey the law. While I am bound by an obligation to my native country which has protected me and granted me freedom and countless social services since birth, I am also bound by my own moral principles and convictions. Thankfully, these are seldom at odds with each other because my own value system has been influenced by the values of the country in which I was raised. The social contract between me and the Canadian government respects my autonomy while also placing limits on my freedom in order to protect the rest of its citizens. For the most part, I allow these limits on my freedom and defer to the knowledge of our lawmakers who likely see the greater picture more clearly t...
... middle of paper ...
...re than reasonable. The alternatives, either blind obedience or disregard for a state's authority may be held by others, but I feel strongly that they would result in an autocracy or complete chaos, respectively. The idea that we owe our government blind obedience undermines our right to self-determination, and the idea that the state has no authority over us is based on the illusion that we are all fully autonomous beings. What's left is the middle ground between anarchy and authoritative rule, where one's gratitude and loyalty for the services its government provides results in a recognition that its laws are to be respected, but questioned. Because there are exceptions to every rule, I believe that it is a citizen's duty to disobey and cry out when those same laws are no longer a safeguard on one's rights and freedoms, and become instead a hindrance to them.
When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or
...ound between no choice and all choices? No matter what government is chosen, someone will always be unhappy with the decisions being made and that will ultimately become a problem as well. Just as the Dylan Thomas poem suggests, “do not go gentle into that good night” (Thomas).
(Common Sense) Then read what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence which states “These rights include the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. When a government fails to protect those rights, it is not only the right but also the duty of the people to overthrow that government.” (Declaration of Independence) In both of these it states that they were doing what was in the best interest for the people.
Different states have various ways of ruling and governing their political community. The way states rule reflects upon the political community and the extent of positive and negative liberty available to their citizens. Canada has come a long way to establishing successful rights and freedoms and is able to do so due to the consideration of the people. These rights and freedoms are illustrated through negative and positive liberties; negative liberty is “freedom from” and positive liberty is “freedom to”. A democracy, which is the style of governing utilized by Canada is one that is governed more so by the citizens and a state is a political community that is self-governing which establishes rules that are binding. The ‘Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ allow Canada’s population to live a free and secure life. This is demonstrated through the fundamental freedoms, which permit the people to freely express themselves and believe in what they choose. Canadians also have democratic rights authorizing society to have the right to democracy and vote for the members of the House of Commons, considering the fact that the House of Commons establishes the laws which ultimately influence their lifestyle. The tools that are used to function a democratic society such as this are, mobility, legal and equality rights, which are what give Canadians the luxury of living life secured with freedom and unity. Furthermore it is safe to argue that ‘The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms’, proves the exceeding level of efficiency that is provided for Canadians in comparison to other countries where major freedoms are stripped from their political community.
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 heard often in movies and other media, “Laws were made to be broken.” This holds true, especially when the law that is being broken is morally unjust and requires a citizen to disregard or act in an unjust manner to their fellow citizens. Any law that requires that kind of action is not beneficial to the common good of society, and creates a contrast between the “good citizen” part of a person and the “decent human being” part of a person. While it may seem that laws like this simply do not exist, they are all around us. They can easily be put into reality through a historical context.
People who do not agree with the laws because they believe they are not fair or right, should not be forced to follow them. Why follow something you do not believe in? Laws should not
It is up to the citizens to decide. If the yearning to be free overcomes the fight to grasp power, then a new wave of democracies will begin overcoming the old authoritarian rule. Everyone has the right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Not all authority is corrupt, so therefore obedience is not always a bad thing. Following moral and just authorities will allow society to continue functioning for many generations to come. Standing up for what we believe in is one of the main reasons civilization has been able to advance throughout the years. There is a good chance that continuing to obey corrupt people and losing our backbones could eventually lead to the destruction of humanity.
In any community, citizens are expected to obey the laws, but what about laws that seem to benefit only one group of people? Citizens assume they must follow all the rules others have set for them, believing that it is their responsibility to obey the law or be faced with consequences. People are told that laws are made to protect them, but very often those laws have been known to benefit some and harm others. Unfair legal and societal practices make people question the obligations they have to their government, making it difficult to understand why citizens should follow certain rules if they are not made in the best interest of everyone. These issues come up especially when the obligations citizens have.
Many citizens break the law created by the government for a specific reason you would never expect. People either break the law because they find it unnecessary or unjust. People should break the law if one is the agent of injustice. They should follow their morals. Although others might say that you should always obey the law and not risk breaking it and paying the consequences. Others also say that going against the law and the government could lead to corruption and rebellion. Henry David Thoreau’s claim makes sense that one should break the law if one is the agent of injustice as demonstrated in Antigone, Civil Disobedience, and Hero or Traitor.
Authority cannot exist without obedience. Society is built on this small, but important concept. Without authority and its required obedience, there would only be anarchy and chaos. But how much is too much, or too little? There is a fine line between following blindly and irrational refusal to obey those in a meaningful position of authority. Obedience to authority is a real and powerful force that should be understood and respected in order to handle each situation in the best possible manner.
However, I feel it may be necessary to start with the earliest theorist on the subject, John Austin. In continuation, underlined in John Austin’s Lectures on Jurisprudence, he described an imperative theory of law, in which he said laws are commands from the sovereign to guide the manner of society’s members (Freeman 86). Of the reason why law’s in his account are imperative. Austin’s narrative say’s that the ruling body of the law may be a group or an individual whose society has a habit of obedience towards, or is habitually obeyed. More so, the sovereign holds no promise but is obeyed through society’s self-interest, which may be fear of sanctions.
King emphasizes the fact that one must follow just laws to avoid anarchy and respect the rights of other human beings. However, he and others have a “moral responsibility” to fight against unjust laws for the benefit of society. He states that individual “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 law” as they are adjusting the basic intent of the law to realign with its moral law through the form of civil disobedience. It is important to note that this view is not ‘new’ or radical according to King. Legality is a very arbitrary term within a historical context as King points out that what the Nazi’s did was legal while what the “Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was "illegal."” Therefore, civil disobedience and the breaking of legal law is justified and necessary to mold a better
As citizens of the United States, and as people living under a democracy, the government has certain responsibilities to us. We are guaranteed union, justice, tranquility, defense, welfare, and liberty. These rights are all very important to the well being of our country and the states that exist in it. I feel that there are three that are a little more important than the others.