Laws real question is what should man

                      Lawsare created by humans so that there exists a certain order in society and tomake sure justice is prevalent. Are the people who are making the lawsinfallible? Are they free of prejudices and biases? Do they always pass lawswhich are just to every person in society? The answers to all those questionsis ‘NO’.

The real question is what should man do when these law makers passlaws which aren’t fair to others that co-exist with us? In situations likethese, humans should break the laws and do the right thing.                        But then again, how doyou reason what is right? That it’s okay to break the law?how do you give yourself thecourage to break the law and suffer its consequences? You think about the causeyou’re supporting and see the good or legitimate reason you’re fighting for. Ifinjustice or unfairness prevails in the society, then we should do what is rightand fight for what we believe in. If someone’s being treated in a way youwouldn’t want to be treated, then change that. What you do to change that isjustified.                            One should alwaysfollow rules of conduct which they think are ethical and if these are againstthe law, then its justified to break the law on moral grounds. You’re breakingthe law because the fundamental principles of right conduct are more importantthan legalities, customs and enactments. Instead of conforming to the lawsmade, you are conforming to rules of right conduct.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now

Breaking the law on moralgrounds means you’re making a distinction between right and wrong and choosingthe right. Things that are not morally defensible should not be the law and ifit is it, it has to be broken on moral grounds.  Sometimes, conscience can be a higherauthority than the laws. If the law is unjust, it is regarded to be wrong. Itseems like that the law was made to be broken.                            Martin Luther KingJr.

said, ‘Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjustand willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse theconscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that momentexpressing the very highest respect for law’. If the law allows injustice toanyone, it should be broken on moral grounds because no one should have toencounter unfairness. If anyone breaks the law, it’s not going to be theirlegal right to do that, it will have to be their moral right.

                      Being an Indian, I cannot imagine how lifewould be if the British still ruled over us. Why is India democratic and sovereignright now? Great leaders like Mahatma Gandhi led movements which broke the lawto end the injustice that existed. Along with the leaders, the citizens of thiscountry were willing to break the established tyrant rules because they knew itwas justified, not legally but morally.

                     The British ruled over India for two hundredyears- they exploited our continent socially and politically. Not only that,they viewed us Indians as culturally and racially inferior, discriminated againstus legally and socially, and subjugated, humiliated the Indians on the normalpublic life during the period. The British subjected the Indians to famines andleft so many to die by sending the available food produce to Britain. Cananyone here say that the law should not have been broken? That the Indiansshould have just followed the laws because that’s what they’re supposed to dolegally and not fight for morality? No.                      Gandhi called for strikesand other acts of civil disobedience to fight against the British and break thelaw peacefully, not violently on moral grounds. As the power of the Britishkept increasing they kept passing unjust laws one after the other. Salt, whichwas a staple in the Indian diet was monopolized by the British.

Indians,weren’t allowed by the law to produce salt and were forced to buy this vitalmineral from the British who not only exercised monopoly over its manufacturebut also imposed a heavy salt tax. The law made India’s poor suffer most underthese regulations and taxes. Is it not justified to break these laws on moralgrounds? It definitely is.                        According to Gandhi, defying the salt actsimposed by the British would be a good way of breaking the law non-violently.He declared this movement of defiance to be the theme of his campaign of masscivil-disobedience which he called ‘Satyagraha’. He’s known to have said, “In my humble opinion, non-cooperation with evil is asmuch a duty as is cooperation with good.” Gandhi set out with tens of thousands of Indians with thepurpose of defying the British law by making salt from sea water. His plan wasto work on the salt flats on the beach encrusted with crystallized sea salt atevery high tide but the police in an attempt to thwart this movement hadcrushed the salt deposits into the mud.

Notwithstanding this obstacle, Gandhisimply picked up a lump of salt from the mud and the British Law had beendefied on moral grounds. The British made laws in such a way so as to exploitthe Indians specially the poor and keep them suppressed in a very wrongfulmanner without taking the masses, the common people into confidence.                      Through the civildisobedience movement, the Indians learnt how to fight their political battleson moral grounds by employing philosophical tenants like non-violence andpassive resistance to break the unjust laws. This case of civil disobedienceexplains my claim perfectly that there are certain situations where it isjustified to break the law morally.                     There are many situations where things won’tbe as clear as Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement where the right thing to dowas break the law and these complex situations need to be addressed. The ban onGay marriage is one such law which created a huge outcry before the ban wasremoved. Many homo-sexual couples broke the law and married each other.

Whilethose individuals personally thought that they were justified in breaking thelaw on moral grounds because they were in love many thought it wasn’t justifiedbecause it was weakening the institution of marriage and was against manyreligions. While homo-sexual people argued it was their moral right to breakthe law because it is discriminatory and unconstitutional, others argued it isin the interest of the public state to ban such marriage as                     Both sides have differentset of morals, beliefs and values. Some say that gay marriage fundamentallyruns counter to religious beliefs of many- to legalize it would offend thedeeply held beliefs of many Christians, Jews and Islam’s who point out that itgoes against many sacred writings.

Further, most said that marriage is forprocreation and each child needs both his father and mother. While others moralviews and beliefs told them that marriage is an internationally recognizedhuman right; it’s a civil right and a personal choice. The ban on such a rightcreates humiliation not only for the homosexuals but also the children theyraise.

Their final point being gay marriage will not harm institutionalmarriage and night just work out better than heterosexual marriages. In suchcases, one has to be keep his mind open and reflect over his own moral belief’sbefore deciding whether breaking the law is morally justified or not.                                                                                                                                                                                                              


I'm Mary!

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out