Roger Dean and myself attended the leadership dialogue with the President last week and I wanted to post about the article we read. You can find it here “Letter from a Birmingham Jail” By Martin Luther King Jr
This was the article that was provided and discussed with the university president. To talk about the “white moderate” and intense issues involving the civil rights movement with the university president is amazing. Let me tell you, Alan Merten our old university president would never talk about leadership in this manner. Anyways, I have a quote that really spoke to me. Read it below.
One may well ask: “How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?” The answer lies in the fact that there are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all.”
This is some powerful stuff here. I would like to see what people think about this.
What is a just law and an unjust law?
At what point is a law “just”?
Do we have just laws that protect all citizens?
October 9th, 2012 at 10:32 pm
I agree!Actually another great piece about unjust law is the american literature by Thoreau, who wrote ‘The Civil Disobedience’, which can be read on this page: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html. Thoreau talks about encouraging citizens or saying that it is their civil duty to disobey unjust law by an unjust government; not to let the government ruin the morality of mankind. Anyone disobeying the law is not an outlaw, but a leader for justice. I certainly agree with your and Thoreau’s argument of having the duty to disobey the law if it is morally unjust. Referring to your second question, I believe that law is only just if it fulfills the needs of We The People and that it protects all men, since all men are equal under the blindness of the law. Law is a reflection of our morality, our needs and wants and what is socially fair for all the people. Nowadays, no law can be created excluding one group, but there are certainly couple of laws promoting one group of people. For example, The Patriot Act protects all citizens, even if their individual rights are taken away for the common good, while it endangers American – Muslims who are no threat, but could then be taken into custody just because they were Muslim. Another example was the Supreme Court case of Kiramatsu v. The United States after the Pearl Harbor tragic event, where all Japanese descendants, who were Americans, were taken into custody for the protection of other Americans. I am not arguing against precautionary necessities to keep our country safe and I actually encourage more stricter rules on Homeland Securities, but just used those examples to show that in order to protects everyone, some innocent people go through the law and are sacrificed to catch the bad guys. That’s where individual rights v. the common good debate comes in. However, I love your argument and totally agree! God bless America haha
October 9th, 2012 at 10:34 pm
An unjust law is one that infringes upon the rights of its citizens. Just laws recognize the civil rights of everyone, no matter the race, gender, or sexual orientation. Right now in politics, I feel that civil rights for woman and gays are main topics of debate. A lot of the laws that are in place have been set in different times, under different circumstances. However, generations have changed over time in ways of thinking and living. The human race is growing to become more tolerant of lifestyles that were frowned upon in previous eras. Therefore, people are fighting for rights that are ignored or blocked under older-established laws. What I am getting at is that unjust laws may not have been wrong at the time, but as the years went on they changed views.
October 9th, 2012 at 10:35 pm
I agree!Actually another great piece about unjust law is the american literature by Thoreau, who wrote \’The Civil Disobedience\’, which can be read on this page: http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html. Thoreau talks about encouraging citizens or saying that it is their civil duty to disobey unjust law by an unjust government; not to let the government ruin the morality of mankind. Anyone disobeying the law is not an outlaw, but a leader for justice. I certainly agree with your and Thoreau\’s argument of having the duty to disobey the law if it is morally unjust. Referring to your second question, I believe that law is only just if it fulfills the needs of We The People and that it protects all men, since all men are equal under the blindness of the law. Law is a reflection of our morality, our needs and wants and what is socially fair for all the people. Nowadays, no law can be created excluding one group, but there are certainly couple of laws promoting one group of people. For example, The Patriot Act protects all citizens, even if their individual rights are taken away for the common good, while it endangers American – Muslims who are no threat, but could then be taken into custody just because they were Muslim. Another example was the Supreme Court case of Kiramatsu v. The United States after the Pearl Harbor tragic event, where all Japanese descendants, who were Americans, were taken into custody for the protection of other Americans. I am not arguing against precautionary necessities to keep our country safe and I actually encourage more stricter rules on Homeland Securities, but just used those examples to show that in order to protects everyone, some innocent people go through the law and are sacrificed to catch the bad guys. That\’s where individual rights v. the common good debate comes in. However, I love your argument and totally agree! God bless America haha
October 10th, 2012 at 11:01 am
I believe the application of any law to any situation, and seeing the morality of the issue more than anything else, makes it “just” or “unjust” for that specific time frame. If your brother is having a seizure at 3 o ‘clock in the morning, and theres no one on the road, and you’re driving at 90 mph and runnings reds to get him to the hospital, you shouldn’t get ticketed.
Some laws simply don’t make complete sense all the time, and there are definitely events in which a law should be overlooked. Another example: in most cases. humankind considers murder a serious offense. However, if a young woman murdered the man that has been sexually assaulting and stalking her, is that okay?
Laws are there to prevent chaos, yes. But sometimes I see exceptions.
October 10th, 2012 at 11:14 am
As my response, I will answer all three of the questions.
1. What is a just law and an unjust law?
– A just law is a law that inherently coincides with justice. A law that is followed by all including those who implement the laws. An unjust law however is a law that is set up for a specific group to follow and not for all. It is a law that has no natural inherent bearing.
At what point is a law “just”?
– A law is just the moment it is reasonable to expect and hope that all men will follow it. Murder is a crime. It is highly rooted in most major faiths. It is a natural law that we as a human race know is inhumane and wrong to kill.
Do we have just laws that protect all citizens?
– Our beloved government has placed laws to protect everyone. These laws can be referenced in the Bill of Right which you can find at http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/billofrights
Most of these rights are rights we have that our government must give us. Things the government can’t take away. Others include the 13th amendment that outlawed slavery that before this amendment was a completely unjust legal law. Also the 14th that let all people be treated equally under the government Finally the 15th and 19th that let blacks and women vote respectively.
As a future prosecutor, I advise against breaking the law at all cost, but If one finds a moral obligation to break unjust laws, one must be comfortable with expecting the consequences of one’s actions.
October 10th, 2012 at 3:52 pm
In Reply to Roger Dean:
The problem with saying “A law is just the moment it is reasonable to expect and hope that all men will follow it.” is that not all people are the same. Everyone has different circumstances and lives and what may be perfectly reasonable to expect from one person may not be for others.
For example, you use the example of murder. I think most of us agree that murder is pretty wrong and people should justly be punished for it.
However, what about in the instance of self-defense? Or what if someone is in an abusive situation? What about the death penalty? Is that just? If it is, why is it just for a state to murder but not for a person?
What is just is not so black and white!