To What Extent Do We Have A Prima Obligation To Obey The Law

The question we are faced with is do we have a “prima obligation” to obey the law? I believe after reading the St. Thomas passages I believe everyone does have a “prima obligation” to obey the law. The passage that made me think was on whether or not the law is always something directed to the common good. Prima obligation to obey the law basically asserts that we have a legal obligation to obey the law. In this passage the argument at hand is if the law is for the common good. St. Thomas argues that the founding underlying principle between common good and the law is happiness. He states that the law should reference back to world as a whole. He also states that the law needs to regard properly to the happiness of the universe. He continues to elaborate in his conclusion that the law is the chief agent in the common good and that one should deprive …show more content…
Promulgation, the application of the law to those to whom it is applied and the communication of this law to them is essential to the nature of the law. The natural law is promulgated by God which is usually instilled through our minds and understanding of our faith. Divine and human laws can be promulgated by words or more often writing. St. Thomas states that a law is imposed on others by way of a rule. He also says that the rules that are being enforced and applied to those who are to be ruled and measured by it. He further elaborates that in order for a law to obtain recognition is applicable thorough promulgation. In his concluding argument, he asserts that promulgation is a necessary component for it to be enforce and understood as a law. This passage helps to defend my position. For someone to have a prima obligation to obey the law there first must be laws that are enacted and enforced. If there were laws that were know by word of mouth, but not in legal writing what good would it do to try an enforce