Laws are created in order to protect and keep the common good in society. However, what if a person finds a law unjust; should they obey the law anyways or should they ignore it because they feel it goes against the common good? If a law is unjust, the people in that society should have the moral obligation to disobey the law. Of course, there are limitations as what is deemed unjust. A person cannot go against the law because they feel like it-they need a valid reason. Therefore, the act of civil disobedience is acceptable because it is the obligation of the citizens to fix laws that are unjust, as long as it is done with good reason and peacefully.
Firstly, citizens have the moral obligation to disobey any law they feel is unjust. By definition, an unjust law is “a code that is out of Harmony with the moral law” (King, Letter of Birmingham). This means the law must coincide with what is deemed right, creating harmony in society. It is the citizens’ job to help create this type of environment and if a law goes against it, they should have the obligation to go against the law. For example, Martin Luther King Junior: he, as well as others, met together in Albany to try and change the …show more content…
The famous quote, “If you fight fire with fire, you’re just gonna get burned” (Unknown) applies here. Had King gone about protesting with violence or vulgar language-anything that may cause chaos-then how is he any better? How will he prove his case in saying he is equal to a white man, that the segregation laws are degrading and unjust, when he is just as bad as the people who set the laws in place? When going through with an act of civil disobedience, you must remain calm and peaceful so individuals do not intentionally cause chaos and so their actions can be heard louder than