From the early Christians to the current day protesters against the immigration bans, humans have protested against unjust laws and the wrongs done to many different people. A just law constitutes of multiple factors, each as important as the others. Just laws follow the ethical and moral instincts of the majority of people. Unfortunately, there will always be some unjust law and from that some changes need to take place.
When a person follows a law, it is for one of three reasons because they disagree, but are not encouraged to protest against it, because they honestly believe in it or because they have no idea about the law. As Mahatma Gandhi said in his autobiography The Story of my Experiments with Truth, “It is only when a person has thus obeyed the laws of society scrupulously that he is in a position to judge as to which particular rules are good and just and which are unjust and iniquitous.” After obeying the law of society, one understands the rights and wrongs of it. They are experienced enough to understand whether their morals are being contradicted. A just law can be determined by any person because the reason they follow it is because they
…show more content…
A just law can also not be in friction with other just laws. They cannot contradict each other and should be reasonable. For example, a law cannot be something random such as “When it rains, it is necessary for all citizens of Nonsenseville to wear blue and grey.” Neither does it not make sense because there should not be a restriction on how people want to express themselves nor does it have a reasonable purpose. An example in the world could be the segregation against the African Americans living in the South. It may have made sense to the Southerners because they were blinded by tradition, the use of slave was even done by our forefathers, but what was its purpose? To discriminate? Therefore, was it a just
For example of a law that is not-just is “If a surgeon has operated with a bronze lancet on a free man for a serious injury, and has caused his death,..... his hands should be cut off. (Doc E). This law is unjust because nobody in this world if perfect and they shall not have their hands cut off for making a mistake. An example of a just law is “If a son struck a father, his hands shall be cut off.” This law is fair because it is teaching people to not strike their father. However three examples presented above of the laws are: Family laws, Property laws, and Personal-Injury law. Hammurabi’s code was just in so many
Different countries have been known to deal with crime in different ways, some believe that we (Americans) should deal with criminals in a more serious and physical manner. In the article “Rough Justice A Caning in Singapore Stirs Up a Fierce Debate About Crime and Punishment” by Alejandro Reyes, it talks about how we should have more severe and physical punishment inside and outside of the U.S. After a teenage boy vandalizes a car in singapore. While in the editorial “Time to Assert American Values,” the writer attempts to persuade us and into thinking that the teenage boy, Michael Fey should not have been caned after vandalizing a car. After carefully analyzing the two texts, the reader realizes that the article “Rough Justice” has the
While these laws are to be followed, some laws may seem unjust. Unjust laws is where what feels emotionally correct overrides what may be morally or logically correct. An example that King referenced was, “It was “illegal” to aid and comfort a jew in Hitler’s Germany. But I am sure that if I had lived in Germany during that time, I would have aided and comforted by Jewish brother even though it was illegal”.
12). By this he means that if a law is going to be unjust it should not even be a law because it is not fair as laws should always be. For example King says “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God” (par. 13). King says this so he can appeal to the nature of the clergyman and help them see the error of their ways. He also says this so that he can tell them that these laws that are placed upon him and his people are unjust laws that do not comply with the law of God which also contradict the teachings of the clergymen. Another example that further develops the quote “‘An unjust law is no law is no law at all”’ is when King says “So segregation is not politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful” (par. 13). When King says this, he is implying that if segregation is sinful and wrong it should not even be a law and it should not even be supported by the clergymen as they are supposedly men of
Conforming to all the rules society has placed is not important, what is important is knowing when it is okay to not follow a rule. People straying away from rules can have many possible outcomes, they are primarily as basic as making the right choice or making a mistake. Sometimes society’s rules are in the wrong, to be able to fix the problem what is needed are people who aren’t afraid to stand up to the rule.Society makes mistakes in the rules that are placed, and people have stood up to them. It is necessary to know when it is or is not okay to break a rule. It is okay to stand up to a rule if someone else is getting hurt, a group of people are being sectioned off or if the rule currently in place is endangering someone that have done
Option 4: Both King and Rawls touch on the nature of just and unjust law, while King goes a step further and argues about responding to unjust law. Write an essay about how individuals do or do not respond to unjust law.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines unjust as “characterized by injustice: Unfair.” At the same time it defines a law as “a binding custom or practice of a community.” With both definitions in mind an unjust law can be described as “a binding custom or practice of a community characterized by injustice and unfairness.” Today one can see unjust laws across the globe, many of which are overlooked by much of the world. At the same time, just laws are often enforced in an unjust manner. The fact that much of the world is corrupt is an obvious fact, however, the appropriate course of action to bring about change, is not always so easy to see. The proper guidelines for bringing about justice are different to different people. Nevertheless, if one observes the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. and compares them to the actions of other groups or individuals who have attempted to bring about social change, a simple conclusion can be reached. Nonviolent means of protest are the most effective way to bring about change, and also the best way to give others an understanding of why the change is necessary.
Is breaking an unjust law justified or punishable? Unjust laws cause people to rebel because they go against their beliefs. In the play Antigone by Sophocles, Antigone goes against the law to help her family member. The pressures of society cause Antigone and modern day physicians to go against the laws and take action on events that no one else is going to act upon because they do not have the courage to do so. Patients suffering from a terminally ill disease that give their consent to the doctor, give the right to their doctor to euthanize them. Situations in modern society like euthanasia demonstrate how breaking the law can be justified in certain situations of life and death. Sophocles’ Antigone and many sources demonstrate a persons’ justification for breaking unjust laws when they cause suffering and violence and violate people’s morals.
A person should always – and one might even say has a duty to – place his conscience or the moral laws he has set for himself over any conflicting manmade law. Many examples throughout history have set precedents for this sort of behavior. Antigone’s burial of her brother Polyneices, when Tim DeChistopher outbid many corporations in a land drilling auction to protest global warming, Martin Luther King’s civil disobedience to end segregation, and the Weather Underground’s violent acts of terror to “bring the war home” were all courageous acts (justified or not) of disloyalty to the federal government.
The representative population of a community is not comfortable when confronted by an individual who defies the laws that bind them. Whether or not the laws or the powers behind them are just, the populace must deal with any challenge to their authority. In some cases, the community, fearful of a powerful regime, will side with that power and avoid the risks associated with rebellion. Others find the tyranny too unjust to stand idly by and, risking their lives, join with other defiant individuals against it.
The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law.
...king some of societies laws is both a right and responsibility. Which in most cases leads to a positive result in society.
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.
There are two types of laws. There are conventional laws and natural laws. Conventional laws are those laws arrived at through consensus between those governed and the government. Natural laws are those laws that are universal and are derived from the natural order of the world. In my opinion, natural law cannot work in our society, as they are not suitable for our environment and how we live together as a society. Natural laws can’t work without causing trouble and chaos between everyone, so why should we place them in our society? On the other hand, conventional laws are governed and are made to be just for the society. That is why we need conventional laws in our society, not natural laws. Also, since conventional laws are governed, they are made sure to be enforced, and breaking them will only ruin that one person for what they have done, not the society as a whole.
Both law and morality serve to regulate behaviour in society. Morality is defined as a set of key values, attitudes and beliefs giving a standard in which we ‘should’ behave. Law, however, is defined as regulating behaviour which is enforced among society for everyone to abide by. It is said that both, however, are normative which means they both indicate how we should behave and therefore can both be classed as a guideline in which society acts, meaning neither is more effective or important than the other. Law and morals have clear differences in how and why they are made. Law, for example, comes from Parliament and Judges and will be made in a formal, legal institution which result in formal consequences when broken. Whereas morals are formed under the influence of family, friends, media or religion and they become personal matters of individual consciences. They result in no formal consequence but may result in a social disapproval which is shown also to occur when breaking the law.