Civil Disobedience: Breaking Unjust Laws, Right Or Wrong?

The question of whether people should break unjust laws is a complex and multifaceted one, with a long history of debate and deliberation. This issue has been a topic of discussion since the time of Socrates, and continues to be relevant in modern times, with individuals and societies grappling with the moral and ethical implications of law-breaking in the face of injustice. While some argue that breaking any law, regardless of its justness, is inherently wrong, others contend that there are circumstances where breaking an unjust law is not only justifiable but also necessary to uphold higher moral principles and achieve justice.

Civil disobedience as a moral duty

Civil disobedience is often regarded as a moral duty, a view supported by many historical figures such as Reverend Martin Luther King Jr., St. Augustine, and Thoreau. This perspective is based on the argument that individuals have a moral obligation to disobey unjust laws that violate their inherent rights.

Firstly, civil disobedience is justified when laws are unjust and fail to uphold the basic rights of citizens. Unjust laws are those that are not in line with moral and ethical codes, such as natural law and God's law, and instead degrade humanity. For example, segregation laws during the civil rights movement were unjust as they discriminated against minorities, impacting them both physically and emotionally.

Secondly, civil disobedience can be necessary to address injustices when legal systems fail to do so. This was the case during the American Jim Crow era, where the laws intended to reconcile racial tensions were inherently unjust, and it was only through breaking these laws that progress was made. Similarly, in the case of voting rights, unjust laws were created to suppress the black vote, and it was through civil disobedience and riots that attention was brought to the issue, forcing negotiations and legislative amendments.

Thirdly, civil disobedience can be an effective way to challenge majority rule and uphold democratic values. In a democracy, the majority's decisions may not always align with justice, and civil disobedience can serve as a check on this power. For instance, in the context of desegregation in the American South, the white majority was opposed to or indifferent about desegregation, but civil disobedience by the minority helped bring attention to the injustice and forced a reckoning.

Finally, civil disobedience can be a powerful tool to test the legality of laws and uphold moral convictions. When faced with conflicting local and federal laws, individuals may choose to disobey the former to assert their moral and ethical beliefs, even if it means breaking the law.

However, it is important to recognize that civil disobedience is not without risks and limitations. As Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. argued, civil disobedience should be done openly and willingly, with individuals prepared to face the consequences of their actions. Additionally, the provocation for civil disobedience must be grave, addressing serious and enduring evils, and there should be a reasonable belief that legal methods alone will be insufficient to bring about change.

The difference between just and unjust laws

Just laws are those that are in harmony with moral and ethical principles, often referred to as "the moral law" or "natural law." They aim to benefit and uplift all of humankind, reflecting the highest morals and protecting the rights of all citizens. In a democratic society, just laws are enacted to protect and enrich the lives of all citizens, allowing them to participate equally in all aspects of society without discrimination. For example, laws that uphold the right to vote and ensure equal protection under the law are considered just.

On the other hand, unjust laws are those that contradict moral and ethical codes and are out of harmony with natural law or God's law, depending on individual religious beliefs. Unjust laws seek to degrade and oppress certain groups within a society, elevating others above them. They deny protection or benefits to specific groups, creating a sense of superiority in some while fostering inferiority in others. Segregation laws, which discriminate based on race or ethnicity, are a prime example of unjust laws. These laws not only impact minorities physically but also emotionally, distorting their sense of self-worth and damaging their personalities.

The distinction between just and unjust laws also extends to their application and enforcement. Just laws are universal, applying equally to all citizens, while unjust laws are often imposed on specific groups, typically minorities, without their consent or involvement in the law-making process. This dynamic further exacerbates the sense of injustice and fuels resentment among those targeted by these discriminatory laws.

Additionally, unjust laws may restrict fundamental rights and freedoms, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and movement. When laws impede upon these basic rights, they become unjust and are rightfully challenged and disobeyed. Those who stand up against unjust laws, even if it means facing consequences, are upholding the highest regard for the just laws that protect their society.

In summary, the difference between just and unjust laws lies in their alignment with moral and ethical principles, their impact on society, and their application. Just laws uplift and protect all citizens equally, while unjust laws degrade and oppress certain groups, creating a divided society. It is the duty of citizens to obey just laws and to challenge and disobey unjust laws, even if it means breaking them, in order to uphold the principles of equality, liberty, and justice.

Historical examples of breaking unjust laws

Breaking unjust laws has been a common occurrence throughout history. Here are some notable examples:

Rosa Parks

Rosa Parks, an African-American woman, was travelling on a bus and was forced to give up her seat to a white man when the bus filled up, standing up instead. This incident was a violation of her rights, and she was challenging the unfair law of segregation, which gave an artificial superiority to one race over another.

Voting Rights in America

In the past, certain states in America had laws that prevented specific groups, particularly racial minorities, from registering to vote. This was a huge injustice, as it suppressed the votes of those groups and created a foundation of democracy that favoured the majority. Chaos broke out as people protested against these unfair laws, which sparked violence and severe repression by government officials.

Chinese Students in Tiananmen Square

During a period of political crisis, Chinese students occupied Tiananmen Square in Beijing and went on an all-out hunger strike. They were protesting against the Chinese government's decision to suppress its citizens and demanding democratic rights and political change. They defied the law by shouting slogans of freedom and democracy, calling for an end to the dictatorship.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

A prominent civil rights activist, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., was jailed multiple times for his role in the civil rights movement. In his "Letter from Birmingham Jail", he wrote about his justification for leading protests in Birmingham, Alabama, and his belief that it is a person's moral obligation to disobey unjust laws. He argued that unjust laws degrade humanity and are not in sync with moral and ethical codes.

Thomas Moore

Thomas Moore, known as the "Man of Silence," is another example of someone who broke an unjust law. He refused to obey a law that stripped good men of the priesthood against their will and conscience.

The consequences of non-compliance

Non-compliance with unjust laws can have a range of consequences, both positive and negative. On the one hand, it can help draw public attention to the issue, forcing the government and legal authorities to negotiate and take action. This could lead to positive changes in society through conciliatory measures and legislative amendments.

However, disobedience towards anti-democratic laws also carries the risk of suppressing the morale and political aspirations of citizens, which can complicate the search for a compromise between conflicting parties. In some cases, deliberate ignorance of civil rights and freedoms by state authorities may lead to a decrease in public control and an increase in cruel "admonitions", as seen in the arrests on July 27 and August 3 in Moscow.

Additionally, civil disobedience is not without its challenges. It requires a careful consideration of just and fair behaviour, proportionality between the desired end and the means employed, and the potential for extreme passions and violence. The provocation for civil disobedience must be equally grave, with basic principles at stake, and the existence of serious evils that are unlikely to be resolved through legal methods alone.

Furthermore, the cause of those who disobey the law must be just. Breaking the law in the name of certain principles, such as equality and freedom, may be justified, while doing so in the name of Nazi principles, for example, would never be justifiable.

Lastly, the decision to disobey the law rests on individual moral judgment, which may differ from person to person. While some may see it as a courageous act of defiance, others may view it as madness or mere rebellion.

The limitations of individual moral rights

Firstly, the concept of proportionality comes into play. While individuals may disagree with a certain law, the response to that disagreement must be proportional to the significance of the issue at hand. For example, organising a large-scale protest or strike over a minor infraction would be disproportionate and could cause more harm than good.

Secondly, there is a distinction between just and unjust laws, and this distinction is not always clear-cut. What may seem unjust to one person or group may be considered just by another. This is where the role of the democratic process comes in. In a democracy, the laws are ideally created with the input and consent of the governed, and there are legal channels available for individuals to express their grievances and work towards reform. However, this process can be flawed, with biases, rigging, and other issues that may prevent true justice from being served.

Thirdly, the cause for which an individual is considering breaking an unjust law must be just. Breaking the law in the name of equality and human rights, for example, is very different from breaking the law to uphold racist or Nazi ideologies. The former aims to uplift humanity, while the latter degrades it.

Additionally, the potential consequences of breaking an unjust law must be considered. Civil disobedience can carry risks, including punishment, violence, and social repercussions. Individuals who choose to break unjust laws must be willing to face these consequences and have the highest regard for the just laws of the land.

Lastly, the effectiveness of breaking an unjust law must be evaluated. While civil disobedience can be a powerful tool for social change, it may not always be the most effective method. In some cases, working within the legal system and utilising peaceful persuasion may be a more sustainable approach to achieving long-lasting change.

In conclusion, while individuals may have a moral right to disobey unjust laws, this right is limited by factors such as proportionality, the democratic process, the justness of the cause, potential consequences, and the effectiveness of the action.

Frequently asked questions