Should we abide by unjust laws?

[Al Mirpuri]

Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.

Here in the United Kingdom, we have a very comprehensive welfare system but the healthy moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the ill to go to hospital, those without children moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of state schools so that other people's children can get an education. Nobody is allowed an opt out. If we all broke the law when it suited us then: anarchy.

I liked your post. I think I would like your friend.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.

Here in the United Kingdom, we have a very comprehensive welfare system but the healthy moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the ill to go to hospital, those without children moan because they have to pay through their taxes for the upkeep of state schools so that other people's children can get an education. Nobody is allowed an opt out. If we all broke the law when it suited us then: anarchy.

I liked your post. I think I would like your friend.

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm so very pleased I don't live in your country, it sounds horrible.

chez

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
how does this "set me outside of the law's protection"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Through spreading an attitude about the law that must erode it. No you won't magically be outside protection immediately, but that's not what you should care about most really imo.

[/ QUOTE ]

But what if that is what I want if I believe the law is unjust? I thought you meant that I would be outside of the protection of all laws, not just the law that I am breaking. I would be fine with that.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Depends on the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there also a right and wrong that is not dependant on a situation? Or is there an idea of right and wrong which is the thing checked on for guidance in each situation, to come to the "right" choice?

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess I would say that there is always a 'better' and a 'worse' but not necessarily a right and a wrong. Maybe I'm a moral relativist, I don't know. I believe in principles that should be checked on for guidance but not necessarily rules.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think any singular act is always right or always wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not any singular act at all? You mean you can't think of any singular act that can ever be said "is always right"? What about that children ought to be treated justly? Or a woman should never be murdered by her husband?

Or maybe you mean that multiple actions are required to produce a "right action"? I don't understand.

[/ QUOTE ]

"Children ought to be treated justly" is a very broad statement and of course I would agree with it. But that's not a singular act. If you gave me a specific instance of child molestation or something like that maybe I could give you an answer about whether it is right or wrong.

I can conceive of scenarios where I would think it's ok for a woman to be murdered by her husband. If the woman was about to kill her child, I think the husband would be justified in killing his wife.

I'm sure there are some things that I would say are "always right" or "always wrong" but I'm fairly sure there are very very few of these situations.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Shouldn't we try to understand the spirit of the law though?

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely. But you asked if we should abide by unjust laws. I was trying to introduce you to the huge dialogue that it leads to. You didn't say "is jaywalking bad for my friend?" or "is drinking before your 21st birthday bad for me?" That issue of the laws and politics and the question of justice is more interesting.

[/ QUOTE ]

True.

[ QUOTE ]

As for morality and self, rules becoming mine, I think rather the moral law owns me than vice versa. It was around before me and will be around long after I'm gone

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you not choose this ultimate moral law though? Where did you learn it from? How can you be sure it's accurate?

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that disobeying an unjust law and acting illegally?

[Al Mirpuri]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that disobeying an unjust law and acting illegally?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite right. I need to modify my position. Theoretically, in order to maintain consistency I am going to have to forgo civil disobedience but yet practically, I know that the if you 'kick up a fuss' you are more likely to get what you want...

[Taraz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Without reading any of the replies, my gut tells me that unless you have a infallible guide to morality (and I do not believe one exists) then you should obey unjust laws and work to change them legally.


[/ QUOTE ]

I am sympathetic to this, because I obviously don't think that I have the "correct" view on all moral issues. How do you feel about civil disobedience? Rosa Parks and all that? What if you don't feel empowered to effect any change?

[/ QUOTE ]

I am okay with civil disobedience as long as it is non-violent.

[/ QUOTE ]

But isn't that disobeying an unjust law and acting illegally?

[/ QUOTE ]

You are quite right. I need to modify my position. Theoretically, in order to maintain consistency I am going to have to forgo civil disobedience but yet practically, I know that the if you 'kick up a fuss' you are more likely to get what you want...

[/ QUOTE ]

You realize what a hole this position puts you in though, don't you? You'll end up following rules you know are probably incorrect and you will contribute to others having to abide by that same unjust rule.

The government was supposedly created for the people, so if a significant number of people disagree with the rule shouldn't they try to bring publicity to their cause?

[ALawPoker]

Addressing the OP...

I personally don't see much point in obeying the law other than when it's logistically necessary. But, I feel like if everyone respected the law the way your friend did, one benefit is there would be less severe laws.

People stand for some things being illegal only because it's so easy to break. No one (well, very few) really have a problem with underage college students drinking a beer. But people still want the law for various reasons. If the ramifications of having certain laws were "[censored], this sucks" then I'm sure more people would stand up for their interests. But when the law is just a mild inconvenience, people don't really care.

If pot were actually impossible to smoke because of the law, I'm sure you would see the law changed.

So one could say the law is made based on the understanding that people can break it as they see fit. So you could also say anyone who does not break it here and there is I guess "over-obeying" it. They're obeying the letter of the law when you can argue that the spirit is most important. But I think you could also say that people who don't break the law work towards making laws a better mirror of our actual moral preferences.

I wouldn't be too concerned with like "disproving" your friend or whatever. He's entitled to value the law just like I'm entitled to value my front door if I really want to. You can explain to him that you don't see any objective merit in the laws and you think he might be happier if he re-thought why he valued them. But at the end of the day if he respects the law then he respects the law.

[sexypanda]

You guys should check out Martin Luther King's Letter from a Birmingham Jail. It's a very interesting article that discusses this exact issue:

http://almaz.com/nobel/peace/MLK-jail.html

One may won ask: "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer lies in the fact that there fire two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the Brat to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all"

Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distort the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority. Segregation, to use the terminology of the Jewish philosopher Martin Buber, substitutes an "I-it" relationship for an "I-thou" relationship and ends up relegating persons to the status of things. Hence segregation is not only politically, economically and sociologically unsound, it is morally wrong and awful. Paul Tillich said that sin is separation. Is not segregation an existential expression 'of man's tragic separation, his awful estrangement, his terrible sinfulness? Thus it is that I can urge men to obey the 1954 decision of the Supreme Court, for it is morally right; and I can urge them to disobey segregation ordinances, for they are morally wrong.

Let us consider a more concrete example of just and unjust laws. An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.

Let me give another explanation. A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law. Who can say that the legislature of Alabama which set up that state's segregation laws was democratically elected? Throughout Alabama all sorts of devious methods are used to prevent Negroes from becoming registered voters, and there are some counties in which, even though Negroes constitute a majority of the population, not a single Negro is registered. Can any law enacted under such circumstances be considered democratically structured?

Sometimes a law is just on its face and unjust in its application. For instance, I have been arrested on a charge of parading without a permit. Now, there is nothing wrong in having an ordinance which requires a permit for a parade. But such an ordinance becomes unjust when it is used to maintain segregation and to deny citizens the First Amendment privilege of peaceful assembly and protest.

I hope you are able to ace the distinction I am trying to point out. In no sense do I advocate evading or defying the law, as would the rabid segregationist. That would lead to anarchy. One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. 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 law.