Should one follow the law of the land or their conscience? Taking a page from the marketing tactics of Old El Paso Taco Shells, I ask why we can’t do both?
With a population of over seven billion, human beings are never going to come to a consensus about what the ultimate conduct guide should be. Still, the two main sides of the debate are that one should either follow the rule of law or their own conscience. However, I do not think that both sides are mutually exclusive. After all, the government is made of of people and theoretically, each person follows their own set of moral principles. So, the laws should reflect those people’s beliefs. If that is the case though, then why are there oppressive laws in place? Besides, only a select few …show more content…
People have tried to come up with a universal set of morals before. One example is the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which still has not been agreed upon by certain countries. Also, how can we convince people like Ann Coulter or members of ISIS that they need to compromise and in general, stop being assholes. Science is also not on our side because the human brain is designed in such a way that we are set in our beliefs and it very difficult to stray from what we have decided on, even if given evidence that we are wrong. Clearly, the evidence has problems and not us. Yet, unless we agree on what is morally right and make laws that reflect those morals, we will always have this issue between the legal code and our conscience. Take segregation laws in the United States, for example. It may have been against the law for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, but to many, segregation was immoral and thus, Parks was justified for breaking the law. Once the law was changed, then the new law, in theory was moral. While I think the laws banning segregation are moral, clearly not every American believed that. I say this because the U.S. supported apartheid in South Africa and even today, there are Americans who support the segregation of Palestinians and Israelis in Israel. Some may say that these are different situations, but at the end of the day, it shows that there still is not an agreement over the moral implications of separating people based on their racial or ethnic background. So, how do we get seven billion people to reach consensus? I cannot say for sure, I mean, I am a mere college student, what do I know? However, I will throw my hat into the ring and say the answer is
With a population of over seven billion, human beings are never going to come to a consensus about what the ultimate conduct guide should be. Still, the two main sides of the debate are that one should either follow the rule of law or their own conscience. However, I do not think that both sides are mutually exclusive. After all, the government is made of of people and theoretically, each person follows their own set of moral principles. So, the laws should reflect those people’s beliefs. If that is the case though, then why are there oppressive laws in place? Besides, only a select few …show more content…
People have tried to come up with a universal set of morals before. One example is the The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which still has not been agreed upon by certain countries. Also, how can we convince people like Ann Coulter or members of ISIS that they need to compromise and in general, stop being assholes. Science is also not on our side because the human brain is designed in such a way that we are set in our beliefs and it very difficult to stray from what we have decided on, even if given evidence that we are wrong. Clearly, the evidence has problems and not us. Yet, unless we agree on what is morally right and make laws that reflect those morals, we will always have this issue between the legal code and our conscience. Take segregation laws in the United States, for example. It may have been against the law for Rosa Parks to sit in the front of the bus, but to many, segregation was immoral and thus, Parks was justified for breaking the law. Once the law was changed, then the new law, in theory was moral. While I think the laws banning segregation are moral, clearly not every American believed that. I say this because the U.S. supported apartheid in South Africa and even today, there are Americans who support the segregation of Palestinians and Israelis in Israel. Some may say that these are different situations, but at the end of the day, it shows that there still is not an agreement over the moral implications of separating people based on their racial or ethnic background. So, how do we get seven billion people to reach consensus? I cannot say for sure, I mean, I am a mere college student, what do I know? However, I will throw my hat into the ring and say the answer is