The author of the article denies the existence of a general obligation to obey the law with rebuttals to counter objections. He starts with the paradox of the just government. It is very confusing if there is an obligation to obey the law of a just state or if the laws of a government are moral when there is a moral obligation to follow them. However, moral obligation is needed to prove that a law is a relatively just law. This means that this moral obligation comes before the moral obligation to obey the law. Obligation to obey the law is only redundant since it is derived from these other moral obligations. If people refrain from doing immoral actions, it is because those actions are morally forbidden not because of the laws that prohibit …show more content…
He points out that Finnis fails to explain why there needs to be a general obligation to obey the law. The author refutes that general obligation to obey the law cannot be explained by fairness because there are many innocuous illegal acts which cannot be unfair. Contract and consent to obey the law are often mentioned by advocates of the general obligation to obey. These supporters argue that by living in a society and taking the benefits of a legal system, people implicitly consent to follow the law. However, it must be acknowledged that too few have given consent and such consent is not enough to concede to a whole legal system. It is worthwhile to have an attitude of loyalty and belonging to a just community, but you do not have a general obligation to do so. If the general obligation to obey does exist, it was chosen voluntarily by an …show more content…
Although the existence of moral obligation cannot be denied, the question as to whether we have moral obligation to legal norms is controversial. It seems quite true that there is no moral obligation to obey a law simply because it is a law. However, I agree that laws have an important function of social stability and order, in determining what is just and moral. This also brings cases where certain action is not immoral in itself, but laws could make it so. I was especially persuaded by the Raz's claim that the reasons for obeying the law must come from the reasons for having that law. If the law is established from a just reason, then it will be natural for people to follow what that law requires, without the need for an
But this shows the book’s central conflict between personal codes of ethics. It makes us question if society’s laws must always be followed and what circumstances garner breaking the rules. I personally believe that when you do not agree that the laws pay respect to everyone’s equal opportunity to live out their own good life, you have the responsibility to change it. Just as Martin Luther King once wrote, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (Letter).
Is it better to follow laws that are unjust but right, or do the thing that is fair but are against the law? Socrates in Plato’s “The Crito” and Martin Luther King, Jr. in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail” answer this question from conflicting perspectives. According to Plato (427-423 BCE), Socrates believed that it is his duty to obey the law of his city, Athens, on all occasions, whereas King (1963) made the argument first put forth by St. Thomas Aquinas that “an unjust law is no law at all” (p. 69). One of these reasons for the differing opinions on this subject is due to the times and places in which these two men existed and came to their views on Civil disobedience.
Even Cesare Beccaria argues the idea that laws preserve society, and rightfully so, because we need laws to help society improve, flourish, and set what is right and
The Torah’s moral responsibility is reflected in today’s world. In our modern American society, the same inferences that historians deduced can be determined with documents such as the U.S Constitution. For example the Bill of Rights, displays a drastically improved tolerance for people of diverse ethnicities, genders, religions, etc. This assists in explaining how our community is much more in accordance to morals as well as considering of the well-being of every citizen. In closing, laws are an important key to recognizing a society’s ways as displayed with Hammurabi’s code and the Hebrew
Political activists and philosophers alike have a challenging task of determining the conditions under which citizens are morally entitled to go against the law. Socrates and Martin Luther King, Jr. had different opinions on the obligation of the citizens in a society to obey the law. Although they were willing to accept the legal punishment, King believed that there are clear and definable circumstances where it would be appropriate, and sometimes mandatory, to purposely disobey unjust laws. Socrates did not. Socrates obeyed what he considered to be an unjust verdict because he believed that it was his obligation, as a citizen of Athens, to persuade or obey its Laws, no matter how dire the consequences.
These reasons will prevent anarchy because one has a conscience to determine which laws to follow and which ones do not; therefore, one shows loyalty to the authority of law and also loyalty to one’s
The Black Lives Matter movement has intervened on America’s unjust treatment of African Americans with nonviolent protests, rallies to reach out to the people, and the making of coalitions of Black Americans. Since the Black Lives Matter movement has started the ideal of civil disobedience has changed in the public eye. Civil Disobedience is still relevant in today’s world, but with the historic beliefs of Mahatma Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and other advocates of bettering America, we can discover a better way to find resolutions in violent political conflicts. “Consent of the governed determines if a law is just” was an ideal coined by John Locke, an advocate of America freedom. The ideal says that the people that follow
We have been trained to be obedient to authority. This quality is deep-rooted in us all from the manner in which we were brought up. It is natural for people to obey orders from those whom they recognized as their authority. This is the natural response to legitimate authority and can be learnt in a variety of situations. In a summary written in the article “The Perils of Obedience” (Milgram 1974), states: “The legal aspects of obedience are of enormous import, but they say very little about how most people behave in concrete situations.”
According to Gloria Steinem, “Law and justice are not always the same”. This quote means that following the law may not always mean justice is being served. Laws are rules and guidelines that are set up to govern behavior. Laws set out standards, procedures
An important role is carried out by the criminal justice system in a democratic society. My philosophy and approach for balancing individual rights and public protection is that law enforcement authorities should restrict citizens’ liberties through force to compel obedience of law if those liberties cause harm to the society. Authorities maintain law and order by restricting freedoms of the citizens through force to constrain them to obey the law penalizing those who disobey the law. However, the citizens must be free to exercise the freedoms granted and guaranteed by the Constitution. Therefore, the law must give way to reasonable exercise of civil liberties when those freedoms do not cause harm to others.
Are we obligated to obey unjust laws? Laws are important because they are guidelines for a state. Without laws citizens would not know how to act and cause harm to others. Laws are aimed at common good and keep a society together and functioning.
The law is an intriguing concept, evolving from society’s originalities and moral perspectives. By participating in the legal system, we may endeavour to formulate a link between our own unique beliefs and the world in which we live. Evidently, a just sense of legality is a potent prerequisite for change, enabling society to continue its quest for universal equality and justice. Aristotle once stated that "even when laws have been written down, they ought not to remain unaltered".
Positivist says that there is no obligation to follow a law morally. But in some cases for example (MURDER) it is good to obey law due to its moral content. Another place where it is good to follow law is to solve a coordination problem for example (driving on your right side). In most of the cases our own moral judgements helps us in deciding to obey law or not. The main issue here is how we should view the law morally, whether law in itself is generally a good thing?
DEFINITION OF LAW: Law is outlined as the principles and regulations set by the governing authority, and have binding legal forces. It must be endorsed and obeyed by the citizens, subject to penalties or legal consequences. It depicts the will of the supreme power of the state. The basic purpose of law is to regulate the society, to safeguard and shield the rights of people and to resolve conflicts. It acts as barrier is preventing people from behaving in a negative manner that affects the rights and quality of life other people, hence violation of law implies the punishment of lawbreakers Dysfunction of Law: Dysfunction of law means failed to abide by the law.
What I will explain to you in this article will, how we are connected with the law and I hope, make you see sense in the importance of our laws in the society we live in. To be against the importance of laws in our society would show one to be ignorant and naïve. I encounter the law on a daily basis when I am driving. I have to follow the speed limit of each road, I have to signal before changing lanes, my vehicle must be in good condition in order to safely drive and I must obey all road signs as they are set in place to ensure the safety of everybody.