I agree, but I would rephrase. I think it is the duty of citizens to reform unjust laws and use the legal avenues available to us to address the issue. Breaking laws, in and of itself, accomplishes nothing.
I appreciated your comment! Thanks. Have an excellent day.
Thanks for the comments and the kind words! I feel compelled to reply to address a few of your points. I know that your heart is in the right place and that you mean well by what you wrote, and so I am replying not to argue with you or to be a pedant, but because I hope that you might be interested in what I have to say and that it might help you in the future. Apologies in advance for ‘picking your comment apart’ but it’s the easiest way for me to structure my reply.
Breaking laws, in and of itself, accomplishes nothing.
I don’t think this is true, even in the most abstract - imagine we lived in a society where it was against the law to feed the homeless - breaking that law would clearly accomplish feeding a hungry person if nothing else. And beyond that, breaking a law is a clear statement that you do not respect it - laws depend on our compliance, if everyone in a society decides to disregard a law, then it may as well not exist. Finally, it also can serve as an inspiration to others. There has been a lot of writing on the subject of the terrible deeds that humans can do when those deeds are normalised by a group - this can be used for positive, good things just as well.
it is the duty of citizens to reform unjust laws
If you had said “abolish”, I would agree. We should never tolerate injustice, and ‘reform’ implies that there is something worth saving in the injustice. It is far better to completely get rid of the injustice (and whoever was responsible for it) first, and creating a new alternative, if necessary, from scratch - with none of the ideas and/or people involved with the original.
it is the duty of citizens to… use the legal avenues available to us to address the issue
That’s just an optional nicety. As I said before, we should have a zero tolerance policy towards injustice. The law does not dictate what is and is not just, and basically exists to protect the rich and powerful from the rest of us. I have very little respect for the law, and I encourage everyone to see the world the same way that I do. We should help each other, be kind and respectful, work together to build a better future - and I do not see the law as necessary or even desirable for that. The law is just a set of rules given to us by someone who has all of the violence and we have to do what they say or they use the violence against us. It’s not a good thing, it’s abusive.
It’s nice to meet someone willing to have a real, civilized discussion, even though we have different views. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify what I meant in the first quote. Breaking laws, purely for the sake of breaking laws accomplishes nothing. Breaking laws in order to help someone is another matter, and I agree, is justified (to an extent).
I have a lot of respect for the law, and I understand that many people do not share that respect. But I agree that the sole purpose of the law is to codify and mediate justice. And if there is an unjust law, it should be made just.
Thanks for discussing with me! I really appreciated your points! Many people treat debates as a competition to be won, but I prefer to see them as opportunities to learn about yourself and others and to be able to think critically!
Virtue and obedience are very different concepts. Virtue involves having the knowledge and empathy to make just and moral decisions, obedience involves doing what you’re told to do
Great point! I would like to add that obedience could also be about obedience to laws, or collective values. Or, it could be obedience or respect for an authority. Take the Charter of Rights and freedoms, for example. Obedience to the authority of that document ensures that the rights of the individual are respected, as well as the laws governing those rights and freedoms. Without obedience and respect for the document, and to the courts and laws of the land, a society falls apart
Now, I’m speaking philosophically, this couldn’t happen to the UK. I’m just presenting another perspective! Thank you for your point, and have a lovely day! Best wishes.
So what happens when a lot of bad laws are passed, and the legislative system only listens to 1-5% of the population ? Should obedience still be lauded ?
If legal methods of reforming those laws are available, then they should be adhered to. Otherwise, we’re talking about a revolution against a corrupt government, which is a different matter entirely.
Thanks for your perspective, I hadn’t considered that. Have a lovely day!
There’s a fairly big gulf between civil disobedience and a revolution.
While many have described Rosa Parks’ refusal to obey racial segregation laws as revolutionary it was only figuratively so, not literally. There was no intention to incite the populace to take up arms and violently overthrow the government on her part anyway.
Civil disobedience of unjust laws is exactly what we should raise our children to do, otherwise we are no different to those preWW2 Germans who turned a blind eye (noting of course that not all did, many principled stands were taken as well).
Civil disobedience against injustice is a duty, not a cause for censure, it’s one of the few methods short of violent revolution that provably works.
Um… yes, I think that is technically and historically correct, but…
I’m personally a big fan of laws. I think good laws and the teaching of virtue is an important part of the construction of a good society.
I believe that we have a duty to break unjust laws. Obedience is a harmful thing to teach your kids.
I agree, but I would rephrase. I think it is the duty of citizens to reform unjust laws and use the legal avenues available to us to address the issue. Breaking laws, in and of itself, accomplishes nothing.
I appreciated your comment! Thanks. Have an excellent day.
Thanks for the comments and the kind words! I feel compelled to reply to address a few of your points. I know that your heart is in the right place and that you mean well by what you wrote, and so I am replying not to argue with you or to be a pedant, but because I hope that you might be interested in what I have to say and that it might help you in the future. Apologies in advance for ‘picking your comment apart’ but it’s the easiest way for me to structure my reply.
I don’t think this is true, even in the most abstract - imagine we lived in a society where it was against the law to feed the homeless - breaking that law would clearly accomplish feeding a hungry person if nothing else. And beyond that, breaking a law is a clear statement that you do not respect it - laws depend on our compliance, if everyone in a society decides to disregard a law, then it may as well not exist. Finally, it also can serve as an inspiration to others. There has been a lot of writing on the subject of the terrible deeds that humans can do when those deeds are normalised by a group - this can be used for positive, good things just as well.
If you had said “abolish”, I would agree. We should never tolerate injustice, and ‘reform’ implies that there is something worth saving in the injustice. It is far better to completely get rid of the injustice (and whoever was responsible for it) first, and creating a new alternative, if necessary, from scratch - with none of the ideas and/or people involved with the original.
That’s just an optional nicety. As I said before, we should have a zero tolerance policy towards injustice. The law does not dictate what is and is not just, and basically exists to protect the rich and powerful from the rest of us. I have very little respect for the law, and I encourage everyone to see the world the same way that I do. We should help each other, be kind and respectful, work together to build a better future - and I do not see the law as necessary or even desirable for that. The law is just a set of rules given to us by someone who has all of the violence and we have to do what they say or they use the violence against us. It’s not a good thing, it’s abusive.
It’s nice to meet someone willing to have a real, civilized discussion, even though we have different views. Thank you. I just wanted to clarify what I meant in the first quote. Breaking laws, purely for the sake of breaking laws accomplishes nothing. Breaking laws in order to help someone is another matter, and I agree, is justified (to an extent). I have a lot of respect for the law, and I understand that many people do not share that respect. But I agree that the sole purpose of the law is to codify and mediate justice. And if there is an unjust law, it should be made just. Thanks for discussing with me! I really appreciated your points! Many people treat debates as a competition to be won, but I prefer to see them as opportunities to learn about yourself and others and to be able to think critically!
Virtue and obedience are very different concepts. Virtue involves having the knowledge and empathy to make just and moral decisions, obedience involves doing what you’re told to do
Excellent. Agreed.
Great point! I would like to add that obedience could also be about obedience to laws, or collective values. Or, it could be obedience or respect for an authority. Take the Charter of Rights and freedoms, for example. Obedience to the authority of that document ensures that the rights of the individual are respected, as well as the laws governing those rights and freedoms. Without obedience and respect for the document, and to the courts and laws of the land, a society falls apart
Now, I’m speaking philosophically, this couldn’t happen to the UK. I’m just presenting another perspective! Thank you for your point, and have a lovely day! Best wishes.
So what happens when a lot of bad laws are passed, and the legislative system only listens to 1-5% of the population ? Should obedience still be lauded ?
If legal methods of reforming those laws are available, then they should be adhered to. Otherwise, we’re talking about a revolution against a corrupt government, which is a different matter entirely.
Thanks for your perspective, I hadn’t considered that. Have a lovely day!
There’s a fairly big gulf between civil disobedience and a revolution.
While many have described Rosa Parks’ refusal to obey racial segregation laws as revolutionary it was only figuratively so, not literally. There was no intention to incite the populace to take up arms and violently overthrow the government on her part anyway.
Civil disobedience of unjust laws is exactly what we should raise our children to do, otherwise we are no different to those preWW2 Germans who turned a blind eye (noting of course that not all did, many principled stands were taken as well).
Civil disobedience against injustice is a duty, not a cause for censure, it’s one of the few methods short of violent revolution that provably works.