“Letter from Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King, Jr., two writers make a case over whether it is moral or not to disobey laws. The question to be answered in our final paper asks whether we agree with what the Laws say about if Socrates was to escape and why we feel that way. It also asks how we think Martin Luther King would have responded to the judgment of the Laws of Athens. In this paper, I will address these questions as well as do a quick overview of each article. In “Crito,” Plato
A controversial issue regarding the law has been whether it is ever right to disobey the law. Some people would argue that it is not always morally wrong to disobey the law. From this perspective, laws that are considered immoral or unfair hinder society through unnecessary restrictions. However, others argue that it is never right to disobey the law. Socrates, who maintains this view, discusses the issue of obeying laws in Crito by Plato, arguing that a citizen “[has] undertaken, in deed if not
There is many different views on the subject of “unjust laws.” This topic is a big issue that is expressed all over the world in many different ways such as speeches, protests and marches. I believe that, one does have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A few reasons that pursued me to believe this is one, by protesting against an unjust law for someone that can not themselves or will not could help change perspectives and lead to improving the situation. Another important reason
The Necessity of a Moral Compass On Law Martin Luther King Jr. said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” This is true in its most basic form. A just society is built around the idea of shared values and protected beliefs. If the legislator and implementor of the law becomes a burden to the people they are intended to protect through regulation; then they deserve to be critiqed and their laws disobeyed. Even the birth of the U.S started with a level of civil disobedience
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
The importance of the law often get forgotten by ordinary American citizens. Frank Trippett in his excerpt, “A Red Light for Scofflaws,” argues that Americans think that law-and-order is threatened mainly by violent crime. He supports his argument by first giving examples of the minor laws that people seem to ignore, such as speeding and littering. He continues by stating that breaking these ‘minor’ laws have a greater affect on foundations of social order than people think they do. The author’s
A free society operates on principles of continuous advancement in the social and economic spheres of the society. A free society would be able to disobey laws that they perceive as backwards and limiting on a people group. This group of people practicing civil disobedience must be able to unite and prepare a plan in order to achieve their goals. In the ideal free society, civil disobedience would only progress the society positively. In recent American culture, people have not peacefully practiced
American law. These movements, caused turmoil and ended with assassinations despite successfully achieving the movement goals. Peaceful resistance consequently causes negative impacts such as violence, social splits, incarceration, riots, and the abuse of peaceful resistance, although on rare occasions, a civil disobedience movement may be completely justified and grandly successful. The changes and reforms these movements
break unjust laws that the government up holds for the public. Although some are more radical than others, each thinker asses their idea in a different way. Thoreau and King both believe that the best way to rid an unjust law is by performing acts of civil disobedience. Goldman on the other hand, believes in complete obliteration of the government thus becoming a state of anarchism. All three thinkers have made it clear in their arguments that it is justified to break an unjust law. In his essay
making the situation even worse. She committed a supremely precarious action, especially for a woman. Not only does she bravely follow her morals, but she does a great job of justifying them in her arguments. Antigone was a civil disobedient by disobeying Creon’s orders and accepting the consequences, but she did a great job of justifying them through her arguments throughout Antigone. One of the reasons that Antigone is able to have the best argument is because of her great use of pathos. In the
god’s laws are more important than Creon’s. Often society has laws that individuals feel are immoral. Antigone decided to bury Polynices, for she was obeying the gods, even though it was declared illegal by Creon. Antigone believed that the power of the gods was greater than the power of any king. If she had obeyed Creon, she would have disobeyed the stronger power of the gods which could have had more of a devastating result on her. She believes that punishment awaits those who break the laws of god(s)
The Law is many things: absolute, necessary, unyielding. The Law should be many things: fair, moral, for the common good. There exists, however, a disconnect between what The Law is and what The Law should be. Every law is absolute. Not every law is moral. As Henry David Thoreau points out in his Civil Disobedience, without making moral distinctions when following the state, citizens “are as likely to serve the devil, without intending it, as God”. Throughout the history of the United States, there
for disregarding Creon's law concerning her brother's burial. A few of them are considerably substantial arguments, others are not. For instance, her arguments on Human Morality, and Religious law, are perfectly valid. However, her arguments on Heroism and, since he is her brother and not replaceable, seem, not quite so valid. But, even if we don't consider Antigone's arguments in this matter, is her action right? After all, she completely disregarded and disobeyed Creon's law in this matter, and afterwards
punishment and sat in jail for 27 years. Similarly Creon punished Antigone to die in a cave of starvation because of her civil disobedience and instead of starving she chose to hang herself. Although it appears Antigone shirked her punishment for disobeying Creon’s law to bury her brother actually she still showed civil disobedience because she was sent to die in the cave as punishment and that is what she did. Antigone’s civil disobedience is on full display at the onset of the play when she is speaking
Disobedience is the most virtuous trait of the human being. How can this be? Since birth, humans are taught to follow the rules and laws. With order and compliance, there exists serenity and complacency. As a child, rules are simple and teach fundamental lessons of responsibility and honesty. As an adult, technical legislation replaces simple rules, but serves the same purpose of keeping society safe and functional. But there is a caveat: not all legislation, or societal norms for that matter, are
In addition, to disobeying authority figures with higher powers they also have no regard to the authority of their parents, as well. Furthermore, they do not respect the laws that have been established by the authorities. Therefore, they are more likely to not know the consequences of their actions besides the punishment of their parents, and if
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
King James I’s “True Law of Free Monarchies” has been analyzed for centuries regarding the true meaning of the text. James I wrote the document to inform the people of his land regarding the “true grounds of the mutual duty and allegiance betwixt a free and absolute Monarchy and his people” (2). By using the True Law of Free Monarchies, James I informed the people about the meaning and duties of the King as well as the relationship between the king, his people and God. In this paper, I argue that
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well-known
demonstrated his polar point of view towards unjust government. Objection to pay taxes, protests, follow own conscience are only some of the methods of disobeying. His main point is that any man, who treats himself as a conscience man, should differentiate laws in order to determine which law is right or wrong, and consequently no to obey that unjust law. I mostly agree with this statement, and this essay will show how does he reach such conclusion and will provide arguments for and against to this statement