Breaking Unjust Laws: When And How To Take A Stand

Breaking an unjust law is a complex and paradoxical topic that raises several questions. It is a citizen's duty to obey the law, but what if a law is unjust? Is it just to break an unjust law? History has witnessed several instances of unjust laws being broken, such as the racist laws imposed on African-Americans, which led to riots as the only means to obtain justice. Civil disobedience has played a significant role in challenging unjust laws, but it is not without its critics. The question of whether to break an unjust law is a philosophical dilemma with no single right answer, and individuals must grapple with their moral obligations and the potential consequences of their actions.

Civil disobedience as a moral duty

Civil disobedience is often seen as a powerful tool for ordinary people to challenge the power of a state or a particularly oppressive law. For people with a strong moral compass, participating in civil disobedience may be seen as a moral duty. This is particularly true for those with a liberal framework, who see civil disobedience as the most effective way to fight injustice.

However, the view that civil disobedience is a moral responsibility is not universally held. Some argue that citizens should not break existing laws or be placed in a position where they have to. Instead, they suggest that there are other ways to bring about change, such as talking to elected representatives.

On the other hand, some argue that when injustice is occurring and no change is taking place, people have a moral responsibility to protest and bring about change, even if it means breaking the law. For example, the Civil Rights Movement in the 1950s and 1960s involved boycotts, marches, and sit-ins that were essential in gaining rights for African Americans. Without these acts of civil disobedience, African Americans would have continued to face harassment, intimidation, and harm.

While civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for change, it is important to consider the potential risks and consequences. Breaking the law can result in severe punishments, and it is not always effective in bringing about change. Additionally, it is worth noting that civil disobedience is typically associated with non-violent protest, and those who engage in it may still hold a sense of loyalty to their country and an acceptance of the concept of citizenship and the rule of law.

Legal and ethical arguments

There are several legal and ethical arguments that support the idea of breaking an unjust law. Firstly, it is important to understand that laws are instruments of social coexistence that serve both communitarian and individual rights. If a law fails to uphold these rights, it can be considered unjust. In such cases, individuals may feel morally obligated to resist and break the law as a form of civil disobedience.

From a legal perspective, when a legal system consistently produces outcomes that contradict our deepest shared moral and legal understandings, individuals may be compelled to break the law. This argument is exemplified in the case of the civil rights movement in the United States, where African Americans broke unjust laws, such as those that enforced racial segregation, to achieve equal rights and justice.

The writings of important thinkers such as Hume, Dewey, Aquinas, and Steiner have also contributed to the discussion surrounding the breaking of unjust laws. These thinkers often emphasize the ethical implications of unjust laws and the responsibility of individuals to stand up for their rights and the rights of others.

Additionally, civil disobedience has played a significant role in challenging unjust laws throughout history. By breaking unjust laws, individuals can draw public attention to the issue, force negotiations, and bring about positive changes in society. For example, acts of civil disobedience during the World War II era, such as the actions of Thomas Moore, helped to challenge unfair laws and protect the rights of individuals.

However, it is essential to recognize that breaking unjust laws is not without consequences. Non-compliance with unjust laws may lead to public outrage, criticism, and even harsh responses from government authorities. It is a complex issue that requires careful consideration of the potential risks and impacts.

In conclusion, while there may be legal and ethical justifications for breaking unjust laws, it is a delicate matter that requires a thoughtful approach. Individuals must weigh the potential benefits of challenging an unjust law against the potential repercussions and strive to utilize democratic processes whenever possible to bring about change.

Consequences of non-compliance

Non-compliance with the law, whether considered just or unjust, can result in a range of consequences that vary in severity. While the specific repercussions depend on the nature of the law being broken and the context of the situation, here are some common consequences of non-compliance:

Legal Penalties: Breaking the law, regardless of one's justification, can lead to legal penalties imposed by the justice system. These penalties can include fines, incarceration, probation, or community service, depending on the jurisdiction and the specifics of the case. For example, in the case of minor traffic violations, one might face a monetary fine, while breaking more serious laws could result in imprisonment.

Loss of Liberties: Non-compliance with certain laws may result in the loss of certain liberties or privileges. For instance, in some jurisdictions, an individual's driver's license may be suspended or revoked if they fail to comply with court orders or accumulate too many traffic violations. This loss of driving privileges can significantly impact one's ability to maintain employment or conduct daily activities such as grocery shopping or commuting to work.

Social Stigma: Breaking the law, especially when it involves a perceived moral transgression, can lead to social stigma and ostracization. This can manifest as public shaming, loss of social standing, or even rejection by one's community. Social consequences can be particularly severe for individuals convicted of crimes that are considered taboo or highly controversial.

Impact on Employment and Housing: Non-compliance with the law can have significant repercussions on one's employment and housing situation. A criminal record may lead to job loss or create barriers to finding new employment, especially in certain industries with strict background check requirements. Additionally, a history of legal non-compliance may make it more challenging to secure housing, as landlords often conduct background checks and may deny applications based on an individual's criminal history.

Financial Burdens: Legal non-compliance can result in significant financial burdens, especially for individuals who cannot afford legal fees, bail, or other associated costs. The financial impact can be long-lasting and may push individuals, especially those from low-income backgrounds, further into poverty. This can create a cycle of debt and instability, making it even more challenging to recover from the initial non-compliance incident.

It is important to recognize that the consequences of non-compliance can vary based on societal factors, cultural context, and the specific legal system in question. Additionally, the potential repercussions of breaking an unjust law may be weighed against the potential benefits or ethical considerations of standing up against perceived injustice.

Unjust laws degrade humanity

An unjust law is one that is out of harmony with moral law or the law of God. It is typically imposed by a majority on a minority without the minority's participation in creating it. For example, a law that permits slavery would be considered unjust because it violates the civil and human rights of the enslaved people. Similarly, all segregation statutes are unjust because they distort the soul and damage human personality.

Unjust laws can also take many other forms. For instance, laws that restrict the sale of alcohol on Sundays, limit the number of hours people can work per week, or prohibit women from driving cars are all unjust because they infringe on individual freedoms and perpetuate discriminatory practices.

The existence of unjust laws calls into question the role of the government and its responsibility to protect the rights and well-being of its citizens. When unjust laws are enforced, it becomes evident that the government is complicit in perpetuating inequality and oppression. This undermines the very foundation of a just and democratic society, where laws are meant to uphold the dignity and rights of all citizens equally.

Breaking an unjust law is a complex issue. As Albert Einstein ponders:

> Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavour to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil. It makes it worse.

While there may be no easy answer, it is clear that standing up against unjust laws is a necessary step towards creating a more just and equitable society. This may involve engaging in civil disobedience, protesting, or disruptive actions. Speaking up, asking questions, and holding leaders accountable are also important ways to address unjust laws and bring about positive change.

Unjust laws create a false sense of superiority

In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", Martin Luther King Jr. wrote about his belief that society has a responsibility to disobey unjust laws. He defined a just law as one that "uplifts human personality," while an unjust law is one that "degrades human personality."

Unjust laws, according to King, create a false sense of superiority in the oppressor and a false sense of inferiority in the oppressed. He used the example of segregation statutes to illustrate this point, arguing that segregation "distorts the soul and damages the personality." By separating people based on race and treating one group as inferior, the oppressors are given a false sense of superiority, which only serves to hurt both parties involved.

King's distinction between just and unjust laws was not merely academic; he advocated for civil disobedience to break systems of oppression. He believed that individuals had a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws and that doing so was an expression of respect for the law itself. He wrote, "I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."

King's stance on unjust laws and his encouragement of civil disobedience to challenge them are essential aspects of his legacy. They serve as a reminder that passive acceptance of evil is a form of cooperation and that true respect for the law entails a willingness to question and, if necessary, disobey laws that degrade humanity.

Frequently asked questions