In many societies laws exist but have little relevance and are not constructed with reason and rationality in mind. Such laws are generally only obeyed because of fear of reprisal if broken and serve little function in society. Although these laws are not aimed at harming others or violating any basic human rights, and obeying them does not actively aid and effectuate the injustice inherent in them, compliance usually confers an opportunity cost to the law binder. Since this type of is not justified by morality or logic, requirement of a certain action by these law should not confer any positive moral weight on performing such action to any individual as it would in the theory of prima facie obligation. If doing X as dictated by such unjust law conflicts with other moral requirements of the individual in any particular situation, then one would be justified in disobeying. If no moral obligations are involved, it is best that the individual decides for him/herself on case by case basis whether the cost of disobeying such unjust laws – the possibility of getting caught and having to pay huge fines or going to jail, outweigh the inconvenience brought about by obeying them and any benefits that disobeying might bring. In short, laws that are not constructed with rationality as a clear part of the construction are not worthy of being obeyed. Even though they may not explicitly violate human rights or freedoms, they are superfluous and seem to be in place only to remind people that the law is more important than they are, even if the laws are themselves arbitrary. Then agains, to the alternative view that we are obliged to obey all laws, one argument states that, “By obeying the law, I can contribute to the respect in which the established decision – procedure and the laws are held. By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war” (Singer, 297). (good)

I believe that, while this argument has a little merit, it is an extremely exaggerated slippery slope and a faulty generalization. I agree with Dr. King’s stance on civil disobedience. King says, “I submit that 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 law” (King, 4). A person did not do an injustice by disobeying a law. In fact, that person did the law the utmost justice. To say that if one individual, lead by his/her sense of moral duties, disobeys an unjust law and such act influence others to do the same simply does not stand. In the guidelines that I have outlined in this essay for response towards both types of unjust laws, one is guided, above all, by the moral law which is rooted in the eternal and natural law and thus holds no bias. I concede to the fact that in some cases of minor type of unjust laws, the fact that one has chosen to disobey such law may weigh against compliance in the moral deliberation of another. However, the argument that Singer makes can be also be said against obedience to unjust laws: by obeying an unjust law, I set an example to the dictator/law makers that may lead them to impose additional, more malevolent unjust laws knowing that they will all be blindly obeyed. Now consider the consequence of each- the continuous and exponential decline in morally standard within the entire society resulting from sightless obedience of all unjust laws, or the possible decline in law and order resulting from disobedience of a minuscule fraction of unjust laws within the entire legal system. As long as people obey unjust laws we will have an unjust government.(Excllent paragraph, on point all around and logically constructed.
A second objection states, “If the law is to be effective outside the anarchist’s utopia there must be some machinery for detecting and penalizing lawbreakers. This machinery will cost something to maintain and operate, and the cost will have to be met by the community. If I break the law, the community will be put to the expense of enforcement” (Singer, 297). This point, although true, can be refuted by a simple utilitarian argument. If it is about weighing the cost against benefits as implied in the quote, the moral cost for citizens to obeying a law that is apparently violative of moral standards is actually higher than the cost of enforcing the law. It might be reasonable to suggest that in a democratic environment, in which power is held by people under a free electoral system and laws are decided by the majority, the above statement does not hold true but this thought is flawed.

The majority rule in the fundamental democratic lawmaking mechanism does not prevent the creation of patently unjust laws. The active refusal to obey certain laws, civil disobedience, helps democracy as it provides a means to insure that just laws prevail. (very good, interesting point)Throughout history there have been many cases of justified civil disobedience which have forced people to ask themselves about the nature of law and order according to man. (true, good) During the 1850’s, American abolitionists ignored the Fugitive Slave Law, believing that all salves should be free to run away from their masters. During the Women’s Rights Movement in 1872, Susan B. Anthony was arrested for voting before it was legal for American women to vote. Throughout history it has been people’s willingness to stand up for what they believe in that has ultimately spread change for the betterment of society. Clearly, all of these examples of civil disobedience are founded in people’s deep faith in what is right and just according to the laws of nature and God and are justified as such. (Use your segregation example of before, a perfect one, even Christ committed a spiritual rebellion, the jews and herod etc.. Adam and Eve were rebels, we have an eternal history of this.

My second point will prove that the notion that civil disobedience is not justified in democracy could not be further from the truth. In fact, democratic government actually accommodates for and facilitates acts of civil disobedience. For this I will use an example in the late 1960s U.S. Two students John and Mary Beth Tinker in Des Moines Iowa were protesting against the Vietnam War by wearing black armbands which was against the policies in public school. The parents of the students filed a lawsuit; the Supreme Court ruled in favor of John and Mary Beth Tinker and validation their civil disobedience by a 7-2 decision. This example shows that America, the greatest example of a democracy allows for and accommodates acts of involving civil disobedience. Democracies allow for justified levels of disagreements in a society and does so because it corrects problems and mistakes in laws that have been made, and makes their society better. (excellent, challenging creates a Darwinism of law, and we get the best and fairest as a result.

Laws can be made and changed while morality should always prevail. Just because something is ‘the law’ does not make is just. One has a moral duty to question and disobey an immorally just law, especially if it openly represses the rights and liberties of the citizens. The people can directly disobey an unjust law to fulfill the moral obligation to because moral issues must be decided by the individual and his conscience, not by the majority through government. For all the reason I have given, I stand in firm of this resolution that disobedience of unjust laws can be justified.

Related Articles

How Spiritual Beliefs Affect Our Religious Practices And Our Daily Lives

Analysis of Books V-VII of Plato’s Republic

The Problem of Evil and the Problem of Reductionist Arguments to Define the Unknown