Disobedience to Laws

Paper Summary:

This paper examines how occasionally disobedience may be necessary to preserve one's moral integrity. For instance, if one is directed by law to kill a human being, or to commit some other sort of heinous crime it is up to the individual to decide whether obedience poses enough of a threat to his or her moral integrity that he or she cannot continue following the law or rule. It evaluates how in most cases, however, it is in the best interests of the individual to obey and to instead amend the system where necessary. It provides examples throughout history where disobeying laws had positive results such as leaders of nonviolent protest movement (e.g., Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr.) who broke laws in the strict sense. It also analyzes laws such as conscription laws which can cause a travesty of moral obligations.

From the Paper:

"Therefore, strictly speaking, it is extremely difficult to act against a law without violating some facet of the body of law in some way. Much of our conception of changing things by "working within the system"is based on Western governmental notions of democratic government. In many other political contexts, there may be no system to work with. For instance, in a totalitarian dictatorship, such as exists in North Korea, for instance, what room is there to change the system? The very act of attempting to change any element of the system might very well be regarded as illegal. It is arguable that this can be found in United States history as well, as with the Sedition Act mentioned above."

More papers on Disobedience to Laws:

• Analytical Essay # 141291 : "Civil Disobedience in the Civil Rights Movement"
• Analytical Essay # 141337 : "Critique Of Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience"
• Essay # 138029 : "Response to Thoreau’s “Resistance to Civil Government”"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: