It is ethical to disobey the law under certain circumstances. Examples of these circumstances would be when a law is unethical or immoral. The law could also be treating people unfairly or violating someone’s rights. You must also have a strong claim stating why the law is immoral or unethical. One reason it is ethical to disobey a law is if the law isn’t moral. An example of an unethical law was the law of apartheid, which took place in South Africa during 1948 through 1991. According to “History.com”, “Apartheid—that restricted nonwhites’ basic rights and barred them from government while maintaining white minority rule.” This means that everyone who lived in South Africa, and wasn’t white was treated unfairly. White people were given better jobs and ways of life, and they considered themselves superior to non-whites. Nelson Mandela had broken one of the rules that was under the apartheid law. He was thrown in jail for 27 years for breaking the law, but it was for a good cause. He believed that the law of apartheid was wrong and he wanted to prove that it was. Eventually the law was taken away because of the influences of Mandela and other people who supported the anti-apartheid motion. …show more content…
On a train ride he came across a man who tried to move him from his first class seat to the back of the train, because of his race. When he refused to move to the back, he was forced off the train. “His act of civil disobedience awoke in him a determination to devote himself to fighting prejudice,”(“World Leaders: Mohandas “Mahatma” Gandhi”). Gandhi did not move out of his seat because he believed that he did not need to move. He had bought that first class ticket to sit in that seat, so he should have been allowed to sit in the
While reading “The Crito” By Plato and Martin Luther King’s “Letters from a Birmingham Jail” I will use these two pieces of literature as a spring board to answer whether it is moral to break a law that you consider unjust. I will start first by analyzing Plato’s dialogue “The Crito”. The conversation takes place in a prison; this is where Socrates is awaiting his execution, and will be serving out the last days of his life. Socrates is visited by a long time follower and student, Crito. His reason for visiting is as simple as persuading Socrates to escape. He throws argument after argument at Socrates, and hoping that he will be able to convince his friend that he should flee the city. Socrates could not break the law just because he believed
Martin Luther King used the same idea of unjust laws to justify his actions and nonviolent campaigns. He used this idea to answer the question of how he can support the breaking of some laws, but not others? His simple answer was that there are two types of laws, just and unjust, and "an unjust law is no law at all." (80). He goes on to quote St. Thomas Aquinas, ."..Any law that uplifts personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust." (80) and says that any individual that breaks an unjust law and accepts the punishment of imprisonment actually has the "highest respect for the law." (81). King makes a very strong point in distinguishing just and unjust laws to advocate his actions, just like Stanton and Anthony do in their address.
Violation of laws was the first ingredient in making non-violence work because it showed how the people who were victimized by the laws really felt about the laws. Gandhi had to rebel against the laws when he wanted the Salt Laws to change; he wrote a letter saying “ if my letter makes no appeal to your heart, on the eleventh day of this month I shall proceed….. To disregard the Salt Laws.”(Doc.1) While, Dr.King violated laws when he sat at a lunch counter, he claimed his purpose for doing it was “to bring the whole issue of racial injustice under the scrutiny of the conscience of Atlanta.”(Doc. 2) Lastly, Mandela broke some laws as well when he told his supporters “that volunteering (for the Defiance of Unjust Laws campaign) was a difficult
"There are just laws and there are unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that an unjust law is no law at all... One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly...I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law."
Sonny’s Blues is one of the famous stories expressing the deplorable conditions the Black community found themselves in during the struggle against racial segregation in the American history. The analysis given by John M. Reilley is to draw the attention of the readers and audience on the image of the black community, basically as expressed by Sonny’s Blues as a metaphor. Following the publication of Sonny’s Blues, James Baldwin realized he had a role in the African American Civil Rights Movement (Baldwin, 69). The story articulates the thoughts and experiences of the racial violence and oppression that was being experienced by the black Americans at the time. Through the story, the writer treats the issues of segregation and racism in a lesser manner as compared to several of his works, but the weight is felt at different levels.
Disobeying a law naturally seems counter-intuitive to fixing a problem. This idea is very Socratic in nature. Socrates believed that it was a great disservice to the state to follow laws that were unjust. “I was attached to this city by the god . . . as upon a great and noble horse (the state in this case) which was sluggish because of its size and needed to be stirred up by a kind of gadfly” (Apology, 30e, Plato). According to Socrates, “pursing virtue and truth in the name of the state” (Apology, 42a Plato) is necessary and actions such as civil disobedience are also necessary in order to find that virtue and truth at times. Both King and Socrates were “gadflies” in the sense that they were willing to question and bring tension to laws that were unjust and needed to be changed. This tension brings along the willingness to fix the laws and make them just. Settling for a “negative
Martin Luther King jr. justified rebellion and civil disobedience in one statement. The statements King makes can be thought of as being contradictory. He rationalized this by answering this question,““How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not
In South Africa Gandhi was exposed to a level of racism that he had never experienced before. He was not allowed to wear his turban in a courtroom and he was not allowed to ride in the same cars as Europeans on the trains. While traveling to by train to Pretoria, he was asked to leave his seat for the van compartment. He refused and was kicked off the train.8 To get to his destination, he found a stagecoach going to Pretoria. He was not allowed to sit in the coach-box with the white passengers, but was forced to sit with the coachman. Later, he was asked to give up his seat to sit on the floorboard. Gandhi would not agree to this injustice. And, although he received a beating for it, he remained in his seat.9 These incidents led Gandhi to decide to fight for the rights of Indian workers in South Africa.
There are also cases where law breaking becomes a compulsion, which is when it comes to life and death. The hierarchy of law should be taken into account. Saving somebody’s life is always of more importance than obeying civil laws. For example, if a person is severely injured and the closest hospital is across the border in another country, then illegally crossing the border should not be the main concern, saving the person’s life should and in such cases law breaking is most definitely justifiable.
Honestly though, I would not want to break the law even if it were unjust unless it was greatly affecting my family or the people I care about because I would rather not risk going to jail or losing everything that I have. There 's also the fear of losing respect and not being able to find a job. In Henry David Thoreau 's essay "Civil Disobedience," he says, "I saw to what extent the people among whom I lived could be trusted as good neighbors and friends; that their friendship was for summer weather only..." ("Civil Disobedience", 12). After going to jail he had lost the people around him, they no longer treated him the same. He did not commit a violent crime, he just refused to pay his taxes and was labeled a criminal. If his friends could treat him differently because of that, then imagine how employers would look at him. But, if there were ever a time when I needed to break a law to protect my family
Must we only obey a just law; should we obey a law because it is just to do so; or else can we not obey at all?'
Ernest Hemingway became one of the most notorious writers in the 20th century, likely due to his abnormal style of writing. Hemingway in his writing introduced the new concept of Iceberg Theory which gives the story a implicit meaning made by the author that should be further inferred by the reader. In order to achieve this style Hemingway throughout his works used objects and movements by characters to symbolize emotion, actions and other deeper objects. Many of Hemingway's symbols reoccur among different stories; one of his most recurring symbols is a train/tracks which is used in following “Big Two Hearted River”,”Canary”,and “Hills like White Elephants”. In the first story “ Big Two Hearted River” the train makes an appearance near the
There were times in history when breaking the law was justified: great leaders like Gandhi and Martin Luther King broke the law and changed the world for the better.
"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.
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?