Final Essay: Civil Disobedience
Is it ever morally acceptable to break the law? This is question that does not have a right answer rather each individual has their own opinion on it. First we should define what this question actually means. I think what the question is trying to ask is breaking a law ever the right thing to do? There are many examples throughout history of laws being wrong and laws that should be completely repealed. The difficult problem is that are individuals justified in breaking a law which ought to be changed. The specific thing I want to consider in this context is civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is an active refusal to obey certain laws. According to Rawls there are eight criteria’s of identifying an act as civil disobedience: There must be clear injustice, the law must be broken, the law which needs to be changed need not to be the one which is broken, it must be done in public, it must be nonviolent, the protesters must accept the penalties for their actions, actions must not threaten the stability …show more content…
This group believes that breaking a law can be justifiable if it provides a positive impact in the society. Martin Luther King is one of the philosophers who thought breaking a law can be the right thing to do. King says ‘one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws….One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty’. He not only thinks it can be the right thing to do but he also believes it is our duty to take determined and non-violent action to counter the law. It must be done with a willingness to accept the consequences that come with it such as jail time. He says ‘by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.’ He thinks by breaking a law you are showing respect towards it by trying to make it right and
Is it ever morally acceptable to break the law? This is question that does not have a right answer rather each individual has their own opinion on it. First we should define what this question actually means. I think what the question is trying to ask is breaking a law ever the right thing to do? There are many examples throughout history of laws being wrong and laws that should be completely repealed. The difficult problem is that are individuals justified in breaking a law which ought to be changed. The specific thing I want to consider in this context is civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is an active refusal to obey certain laws. According to Rawls there are eight criteria’s of identifying an act as civil disobedience: There must be clear injustice, the law must be broken, the law which needs to be changed need not to be the one which is broken, it must be done in public, it must be nonviolent, the protesters must accept the penalties for their actions, actions must not threaten the stability …show more content…
This group believes that breaking a law can be justifiable if it provides a positive impact in the society. Martin Luther King is one of the philosophers who thought breaking a law can be the right thing to do. King says ‘one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws….One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty’. He not only thinks it can be the right thing to do but he also believes it is our duty to take determined and non-violent action to counter the law. It must be done with a willingness to accept the consequences that come with it such as jail time. He says ‘by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the very highest respect for law.’ He thinks by breaking a law you are showing respect towards it by trying to make it right and