This paper defends the right of citizens to consciously disobey laws in their society, after examination. People have a right to form idiosyncratic beliefs through their own conscience and rationality. Individuals should demonstrate the values they believe are worth losing their life, liberty, and property, through their actions. The actions they choose should not cause irreversible damage. People, compelled to act must do so regardless of the justness of their society. The just government acts as an extension of the people, and needs ways to revise laws. When a person regards a law as unjust by their contemplated moral standards, a person has a duty to take action to uphold their morals, or leave that society. A person’s beliefs are the
…show more content…
Only through examination may we live a life of meaning and purpose as proposed by Socrates: “[an] unexamined life is not worth living.”. If a person can reflect and differentiate the relative strengths of their various moral beliefs, they may then recognize their willingness to compromise each of their beliefs. When an individual appears to find their examined moral code in contention with the laws, they have a duty to be discerning when choosing to prioritize the society’s beliefs or their own. In this choice, each person must weigh their moral integrity above a blind adherence to society, living an examined life. Society are formed for the “mutual preservation of [citizen’s] lives, liberties and estate.”. To act against a law, a person must value their moral integrity as more valuable than the preservation of their property. The societal laws should not be based solely on majority values, instead those values which everyone may compromise to and not be restricted or have their consciences in contention should be upheld. Once an individual has determined that they cannot adapt their view for the protection society provides their property, then that individual has a duty to act on their morals or to leave that …show more content…
As Thoreau stated: “Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Only through creating friction does moral standing start to gain credibility and become a changer in society, one which the government cannot irradiate. A person who will submit to imprisoned for their moral beliefs inherently gives more credible merit to their views than those who cannot commit themselves to such action. In this way, a person; sacrificing the foundational things their society grants them, undermines the regime. Such imprisonment forces citizens to question the validity of the law in question and the government which would imprison ‘dissenters’ without proper measure and method. A counter to this argument would be to point out that when dealing with governments that are not reasonable, the individual may not be expected to place themselves in a situation with such possible harm. However; under such a regime, the citizens have a duty to control, revolt, and regain their sovereignty at whatever costs. Without contention, governments which do not involve citizens have made their citizens slaves to their incentives. Such a government is not worthy of citizens as it no longer protects property, but infringes upon it, failing
Only through examination may we live a life of meaning and purpose as proposed by Socrates: “[an] unexamined life is not worth living.”. If a person can reflect and differentiate the relative strengths of their various moral beliefs, they may then recognize their willingness to compromise each of their beliefs. When an individual appears to find their examined moral code in contention with the laws, they have a duty to be discerning when choosing to prioritize the society’s beliefs or their own. In this choice, each person must weigh their moral integrity above a blind adherence to society, living an examined life. Society are formed for the “mutual preservation of [citizen’s] lives, liberties and estate.”. To act against a law, a person must value their moral integrity as more valuable than the preservation of their property. The societal laws should not be based solely on majority values, instead those values which everyone may compromise to and not be restricted or have their consciences in contention should be upheld. Once an individual has determined that they cannot adapt their view for the protection society provides their property, then that individual has a duty to act on their morals or to leave that …show more content…
As Thoreau stated: “Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.” Only through creating friction does moral standing start to gain credibility and become a changer in society, one which the government cannot irradiate. A person who will submit to imprisoned for their moral beliefs inherently gives more credible merit to their views than those who cannot commit themselves to such action. In this way, a person; sacrificing the foundational things their society grants them, undermines the regime. Such imprisonment forces citizens to question the validity of the law in question and the government which would imprison ‘dissenters’ without proper measure and method. A counter to this argument would be to point out that when dealing with governments that are not reasonable, the individual may not be expected to place themselves in a situation with such possible harm. However; under such a regime, the citizens have a duty to control, revolt, and regain their sovereignty at whatever costs. Without contention, governments which do not involve citizens have made their citizens slaves to their incentives. Such a government is not worthy of citizens as it no longer protects property, but infringes upon it, failing