Martin Luther King, Jr. said that “Just as it is the duty of all men to obey just laws, so it is the duty of all men to disobey unjust laws” (“Quotes about Law”). This reasoning has led me to conclude that sometimes one is justified in breaking a law based on his personal view or belief. However, this is not to say that everyone should break every law they disagree with. There are certain procedures that must be followed in order to produce change. The last resort would be to break the actual law itself. There are proper methods that a good citizen observes in order to bring about legal change; because it is these methods which affect the rest of society’s citizens, I would personally stand up against any law that I found to be wrongful and/or unjust.
Situations arise in which it becomes necessary to break a law because it does not agree with one’s personal opinions or convictions. The most notable example concerns the fight for civil rights among the black population of the United States. Having been oppressed for decades, the negro population waited patiently for the day when their equality would come. However, this day would prove to be too far off in the future, and failed negotiations left the citizenry with no alternative but protest. The peaceful marches, the “sit-ins” in diners and restaurants, and Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white person, are but a few examples of the peaceful protest which the negroes resorted to. Despite the fact that these may appear to be random events, rest assured that there was a specific way in which the colored population came to the point of being justified in taking direct action and breaking the law.
A good citizen should strive to follow a simple methodology in order to produce change. Martin Luther King, Jr. best characterized the procedure in writing in his A Call for Unity and Letter from Birmingham City Jail that “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: (1) collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, (2) negotiation, (3) self-purification, and (4) direct action” (King, Jr. 384). So it is that one should decide whether or not a law is unjust, and if so, try to negotiate by peaceful means to reach the end that he desires. If this does not work, perhaps it is the individual that must change. However, more often than not, direct action must be taken in order to restore justice and/or equity. The Declaration of Independence provides the opportunity for such a necessity in saying that “Governments are instituted…deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government…” (Jefferson 279). In the eyes of a good citizen there is a general framework to be followed before turning to direct action. However, as supported and recognized by our own Declaration of Independence, it sometimes becomes necessary to affect change by instituting new government (or laws).
The fact that direct action and subsequent breaking of the law affects the rest of society must not be overlooked. One individual’s actions can make a lot of difference, in fact, it can make more of a difference than anyone realizes or may be willing to admit. One individual’s actions can produce very large amounts of tension, which force people to face the facts and change their world (King, Jr. 386). Once again, Rosa Parks must not be forgotten. As a single individual she stood up for what she believed in, and forever influenced the Civil Rights Movement. Bernard Williams’ An Awkward Virtue condenses the result in saying, “There is a tension here between one’s own commitments, and the acceptance that other people may have other and perhaps quite distasteful commitments” (Williams 350). However, the tolerance needed to deal with such disagreeing views is more often than not nowhere to be found. This forces a particular topic to the forefront for political discussion and action. Such was the case with the civil rights issue, which spurred widespread controversy and disagreement. Williams further elaborates in writing that “The real problems of tolerance are to be found at the level of human relations and of the attitude of one way of life towards another; it is not only a question of how the power of the state is used” (Williams 350). Direct action is necessary in order to convince others of your views, in other words, to show them the injustice of many of the laws concerning blacks. Without changing the general consensus, the law, which is reflected by the sentiments of the population at large (and the majority thereof), cannot be corrected. By taking direct action one sparks debate, controversy, and outrage – all of which are necessary in order to affect change. This affects the rest of the citizenry not only by creating altercation, but also by trying to rectify the situation and help the minority who are unjustly discriminated against under the law in these most abject circumstances.
My actions would similarly reflect the steps that have already been characterized if I were to be placed in a similar situation. I would first analyze if there was in fact an injustice occurring under the law. Next, I would try to negotiate some sort of compromise with the authorities. If this failed, I would be forced to ask myself the question, am I being outrageous in thinking this way? Is it I who must change? If in fact I decided that this was not the case, then I would be inclined to protest, and engage in acts of civil disobedience. If I were to be discriminated against for being Italian, I would not hear of it. I would swiftly run through these steps and try to bring about the change that I wished to see. As King pointed out in his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, T.S. Eliot “said that there is no greater treason than to do the right deed for the wrong reason” (King, Jr. 395). Deciding that I was doing the wrong deed for the right reason would give me the strength and willpower to pursue my goal and end the oppression of Italians, much as the blacks have already done. According to Martha C. Nussbaum, author of Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism, the fact that I “give [my] first allegiance to what is morally good” makes me a cosmopolitan (Nussbaum 399). I find it morally reprehensible to not stand up for that which you believe in. This statement is in explicit agreement with Sophocles’ Antigone, in which he wrote: “I would not be silent if I saw ruin, not safety, on the way towards my fellow citizens” (Sophocles 223). How could anybody choose to ignore a situation in which their morals were not observed? How could anybody stand by and watch such a thing as oppression occur, and not do anything about it? This I do not understand, which is why I would certainly follow the steps that I have previously characterized in dealing with such difficult situations which entail unjust laws and their breaking.
In conclusion, there are correct methods by which a good citizen proceeds to bring about legal change; these methods affect the rest of society, which is why I would fight against any law that I disagreed with on moral grounds. This kind of analytical thinking and objectivity needs to be put to use in these situations. It is this kind of approach, one involving a specific methodology and solid foundation of reason, which results in positive changes and outcomes. If more people would adopt such tactics, the world could advance and improve continuously, always getting better and providing a more suitable place in which to live. Dissension with respect to unjust laws is not only necessary at times, but may also be warranted.
Works Cited
Jefferson, Thomas. “Declaration of Independence.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 279.
King, Jr., Martin Luther. “A Call for Unity and Letter from Birmingham City Jail.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 384, 386, 395.
Nussbaum, Martha C. “Patriotism and Cosmopolitanism.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 399.
“Quotes about Law.” Famous-Quote.net. 2008. Famous-Quote.net. 3 November 2008.
Sophocles. “Antigone.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 223.
Williams, Bernard. “An Awkward Virtue.” Pacific Seminar I: What is a Good Society? Ed. Jeffrey Becker. New York: Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing Company. 350.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento