Sunday, July 12, 2009
"Unjust Law is not Law"
When hearing the statement “unjust law is not law,” it raises a lot of questions regarding the legal system of today’s world. What is the actual definition of this concept centered on morals, justice, and fairness? Laws, in some circumstances, have a goal within their creation. Think about the laws regarding economics. Their center focus is the growth of a nation or land. How can a law avoid its political purpose as well as maintaining its legitimacy towards justice? Laws are not politically neutral, so where is the justification in that? Law can just be used as a tool of management. If you need a society to operate differently, one of power will most likely alter law. Then you enter the argument of obedience. Society plays like a puppet to this light of injustice, but what motivates you to question your leaders? Laws are supposed to address the general will of the public, which in turn represents the common good. Correct? However, we as a society cannot say as a whole that we follow a common law. Think about the civil rights movement as mentioned in class, the public understood that following law would be asking the citizens of America to live a life that is morally wrong. You can also use the anti-war movement as an example too. The issue that needs to be addressed is that unjust law is not law. So the question I want to pose is if you personally do not feel that a law is morally justified do you have a right as a citizen to disobey its orders?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Wouldn’t it be up to the ‘puppeteer’
ReplyDelete“Then you enter the argument of obedience. Society plays like a puppet to this light of injustice, but what motivates you to question your leaders? Laws are supposed to address the general will of the public, which in turn represents the common good. Correct? ”
to decide what the purpose of law is? Does it necessarily have to live up to the expectations of society, or provide for the majority? A law could easily address the will of the public negatively, and only positively influence those in power, or the law-makers. So, what is law ‘supposed’ to do, and wouldn’t this be determined by the creator of the law if law is in fact entirely dependent on human construct?
In the 50's segregation was considered a social norm and a law, until it was eventually deemed unconstitutional in the late 60's. "Separate but equal" was a societal norm but certainly did not provide for the majority of the people. The Caucasian society was in power, which influenced the creation of these "laws." Segregation was not moral, just, or fair, yet was viewed as a law and was common convergent behavior. Laws needed to be broken in order to obtain equal rights. Civil disobedience is important for the sake of legitimacy in regards to jurisprudence, but in the United States there are many other preceding options. The American judicial system gives its people many ways to challenge laws if thought to be unlawful. Civil disobedience is important as a last resort. Some feel that by undermining the system it loses its stability, but what is more unstable then an unjust system? A balance can be found If you undermine only certain unjust aspects with out undermining the entirety of the system. So what is to say we should follow a law if we believe it is unjust to sustain an unfair legal system?
ReplyDeleteAs an avid arguer I have been contemplating with the question of "Who said that's MY law?" for a long time. If I don’t agree with a certain rule of law I should not have to follow it just because some morons on the other side of the country kept screwing it up. I agree with Mike because in an absolute free world, such as the one we inherited at the dawn of mankind, that question would be completely valid to ask oneself. The difference comes in morality. Granted, we all agree if we were absolutely free and no one governed us we could live as normal adults and be healthily and happily amongst each other. Unfortunately, not everyone is mentally mature enough to do that, which was probably evident back during the first civilizations which cause need for government. I think the better way to phrase the question would be “Where do you go, individually that is, to fight a law that you can prove unjust?”
ReplyDeleteI am always searching online for articles that can help me. There is obviously a lot to know about this. I think you made some good points in Features also. Keep working, great job ! Lawyers Directory USA
ReplyDeletei am for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It truly helpful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to present something back and help others such as you helped me. US Lawyers Directory
ReplyDeletethanks for idea Legal Guest Post'
ReplyDelete