Disobedience In Society

Better Essays
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

Related Documents

  • Decent Essays

    Devlin and Dworkin agree that not every individual is capable of giving consent and there should be restrictions of what individuals are capable of such, this would allow legal intervention in some of the acts Devlin considers immoral. Public morality is something that comes from justification not from a reasonable man making decisions for society as a whole. Although if a society has an overwhelming opposition to an act that Dworkin would deem as justificatory then there should be a right to overturn such act otherwise it could potentially be more harmful to society than prohibiting…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    A person's sense of morality is defined in terms of more abstract principles and values. Moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. People now believe that some laws are unjust and should be changed or eliminated. This level is marked by a growing realization that individuals are separate entities from society and that individuals may disobey rules inconsistent with their own principles. Post-conventional moralists live by their own ethical principle that typically include such basic human rights as life, liberty, and justice and view rules as useful but changeable rather than absolute dictates that must be obeyed without question.…

    • 965 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Once a person finds an unjust law and breaks it, they must “accept the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice…” (King 384). Being punished for a crime, despite being morally innocent, is important for one’s own sense of justice. It is better to receive a punishment than to admit lies that one has not done, otherwise there is no point; therefore, hypocrisy. Thoreau argues that it is important for a person to be aware of unjust laws by thinking for one’s self, and King states that a person must be ready to accept punishment. A person must not blindly obey a law simply because it is from their government, and they must be willing to receive the punishment that is…

    • 853 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Cultural relativism says all one has to do is check if their action is in agreement with their societal code to determine if their action is right or wrong. But what if their societal codes are wrong? “Cultural Relativism not only forbids us from criticizing the codes of other societies; it also stops us from criticizing our own” (Rachels 34). Rachels final argument against cultural relativism is that it destroys the idea of moral progress and social change. We could not say that Martin Luther King, Jr. changed society for the better as that would be judging the social standards of another time.…

    • 412 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    John Stuart Mill discusses his theory on human nature in On Liberty. Mill portrayed his belief of the Harm Principle, which can be presented as the following: as long as one’s actions are not harming another person, the government nor society should intrude. The Harm Principle also protects the three basic liberties of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom to pursue tastes. Mill believes that the government should have the interests and opinions of the public in mind. On top of that, Mill feels as though an oppressed opinion results in a loss for society because even if an opinion is false, it may have some truth to it, and unless the opinion is voiced, the truth will never be heard.…

    • 1373 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    How is it that people are to follow through with something without considering the consequences? Immanuel Kant argues that we as people should not act for reasons because if we do, we will be self-contradicting ourselves. He believes that we are being morally irrelevant if we base are wrong doings or right doings with consequences before we choose to do the action. He believes we should be willing to accomplish our duties and tasks without worrying about the aftermath of an action. Kant believes it should be a requirement for us to obey the moral law because it is a noble thing to do.…

    • 1804 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    If we, as a society agree in punishment for breaking laws, then we, as a society must believe in free will. Humans must have free will or we are punishing people for actions for which they had no control. There cannot be moral responsibility if everything is determined, as the responsibility would not fall on the human, but rather the force that made the predetermination. Philosopher John Locke discusses this in his book An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. He states that the ability to suspend the fulfillment of one’s desires shows that we are have free will.…

    • 2102 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    TRN160 – Critical Summary In Hart’s article, he mentions two types of theses: The moderate thesis and the extreme thesis. The moderate thesis, discussed by Patrick Devlin, claims that: “shared morality is the cement of society” and “without it there would be aggregates of individuals, but no society” (48) Furthermore, it claims that any deviation from social morality is a crime against society as a whole thus the state has the authority to correct this deviation through the law. The extreme thesis claims that: “the enforcement of morality is regarded as a thing of value” (49) which is not a tool used by the government to justify creating certain laws. The major difference between the two theses is that the moderate thesis gives power to the…

    • 768 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Realistically, not all members of society follow the same set of morals, therefore it is possible for there to be discrepancies between what one person regards as suitable behaviour, and what another person may deem inappropriate. However, both Bentham and Kant agree that individuals must make decisions based upon what the desired outcome is. Therefore, if individuals in society desire peace and safety, they must avoid disrupting social order by not committing crimes or behaving in a way that would cause others harm. Bentham, however further believes that any action that will serve and benefit the majority should be taken, even if it means going against what is thought to be morally right. This means that if an action is taken in good faith, and the desired outcome positive and beneficial to society, it must be taken, even if that means that a member of that society is harmed in doing so.…

    • 1044 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays
  • Decent Essays

    Society will create certain norms that are deemed acceptable or unacceptable, ultimately this is up to the society. Therefore since the harm principles promotes a truly individualistic rights theory. The state cannot give the power to individuals to do what they please, that is not how society will function, society will always come first. The state must worry not about the individual but how their actions will affect the society as a whole. Therefore the state must protect society with their justification through the norms of society.…

    • 1125 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Decent Essays