Civil Law: Unjust Or Just?

Civil disobedience is a form of protest that involves intentionally breaking the law as a form of political protest. However, this can cause problems such as increased crime and violent confrontations with police. The question of whether civil disobedience is morally appropriate depends on the extent of justice of the law in question. Even laws that are not fully just may still morally obligate us to an extent. Breaking laws can damage the common good, as it undermines respect for the law in general. However, some argue that unjust laws are not truly laws at all and that it is the civic duty of citizens to resist them.

Civil disobedience

One example of civil disobedience is the Occupy movement, which has been associated with increased crime and violent confrontations with police, leading to what Aquinas calls a "scandal or disturbance". This term refers to the potential damage to the common good that can result from breaking laws, even unjust ones. Aquinas argues that our personal moral obligation to the common good directs us to avoid such disturbances when possible.

However, it is also important to recognise that some laws may be "just on their face but unjust in their application", as described by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. In such cases, civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for challenging injustice and bringing about positive change. For example, Gandhi inspired a large-scale resistance against British colonial rule in India, which was characterised by unjust policies and exploitation.

Ultimately, the decision to engage in civil disobedience involves a complex moral evaluation of the extent of justice in a law and the potential costs and benefits of breaking it. While civil disobedience can carry risks and negative consequences, it can also be a powerful force for change and a way to uphold our moral obligations to the common good.

Common good

Civil law can be unjust, and it is important to recognise when this is the case. Aquinas states that any edict that does not come from a rightful authority or promote the common good is not a law at all. Civil disobedience can be a response to unjust laws, but it can also damage the common good. This is because when laws are broken, even unjust ones, it undermines respect for the law more generally.

However, civil disobedience can also be seen as a civic act that fits into the public life of the community. For example, Gandhi inspired large-scale resistance against British colonial rule in India, as it was unjustly exploiting the country. This demonstrates that civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for promoting the common good when laws are unjust.

It is important to recognise that even unjust laws may still morally obligate us to an extent. This is because laws with an "extent of justice" also do some good. As such, it is necessary to consider whether it is morally appropriate to violate an unjust law.

In summary, civil law can be unjust, and civil disobedience can be a response to this. However, it is important to weigh the potential benefits of civil disobedience against the potential damage to the common good. Ultimately, the decision to engage in civil disobedience should be based on a careful consideration of the specific circumstances and the potential consequences.

Nonviolent protest

Civil disobedience is a way to protest unjust laws. However, it is important to note that breaking laws, even unjust ones, can damage the common good. This is because human law gets much of its respect and authority from longstanding customs of observance. When laws are broken, precedents are set against those customs, and the general level of respect for law—including good laws—declines. This can lead to increased crime and sometimes-violent confrontations with police, as seen in the Occupy movement.

One example of civil disobedience is the Birmingham demonstrations, where youth joined the demonstrations after getting trained in nonviolence and were then treated roughly by the authorities. Another example is Gandhi's large-scale resistance against British colonial rule in India, which was inspired by the belief that British rule had deviated from the true purpose of government and was exploitative.

When considering whether to violate an unjust law, it is important to recognise that even laws that fail to be fully just may still morally obligate us to an extent. This is because, as Aquinas points out, unjust laws can also do some good. Therefore, our own personal moral obligation to the common good—which is separate and more basic than a legal obligation—directs us to avoid civil disobedience when possible.

In summary, while civil disobedience can be a powerful tool to protest unjust laws, it is important to carefully consider the potential consequences and moral implications before taking such action.

Unjust laws and the extent of justice

It is generally accepted that unjust laws do exist, and that civil disobedience is sometimes necessary. However, the extent to which a law is unjust is a complex question.

Aquinas argues that laws that are unjust, either in what they command, or in who commands them or how, are not truly laws at all. He says that such laws are acts of violence, and that they are devoid of the nature of law. This implies that unjust laws do not have the same authority as just laws, and that citizens are not morally obligated to follow them.

However, Aquinas also points out that breaking laws, even unjust ones, damages the common good. This is because human law gets much of its respect and authority from longstanding customs of observance. When laws are broken, precedents are set against those customs, and the general level of respect for law declines. This means that even unjust laws may still morally obligate us to an extent.

Gandhi's resistance against British colonial rule in India is an example of civil disobedience in response to unjust laws. The British unjustly maintained a costly civil and military administration, destroyed indigenous industries, caused massive unemployment and famine, and generally exploited India. Gandhi's followers saw their violation of British rule as a civic act that properly fit into the public life of the community.

In conclusion, while it is generally accepted that unjust laws exist, the extent to which a law is unjust, and the appropriate response to such laws, is a complex question that depends on various factors.

Unjust laws and the nature of law

The nature of law is a complex and multifaceted topic that has been the subject of debate and discussion for centuries. One aspect of this discussion centres around the question of whether civil law can be unjust, and if so, what constitutes an unjust law.

Some scholars, such as Aquinas, argue that any edict that does not come from a rightful authority or promote the common good "must needs be devoid of the nature of a law". In other words, a law that is not just, or that fails to meet certain requirements, is not truly a law at all. This view suggests that unjust laws lack the essential characteristics that define what a law is.

However, the question of what constitutes an unjust law is not always clear-cut. In some cases, a law may be just on its face but unjust in its application. For example, a law that is applied unfairly or unequally could be considered unjust, even if the law itself is not inherently unjust. Additionally, some laws may have an "extent of justice", meaning that while they may be unjust in some respects, they also do some good.

The issue of unjust laws has been a driving force behind civil disobedience movements throughout history. For example, Gandhi's resistance against British colonial rule in India was inspired by the belief that the British government was unjustly exploiting and harming the Indian people. In such cases, dissenters may view their violation of the law as a civic act that is necessary to bring about change and protect the public good.

Overall, the nature of law is a complex and multifaceted topic that involves considerations of justice, authority, and the common good. While there may be differing opinions on what constitutes an unjust law, it is clear that the issue of unjust laws has significant implications for society and the legal system.

Frequently asked questions