Dear all, this writing comes from Eddy Suaib's acount, one of the contributor here, in another website, and I copied here as his permission. Hopefully you are kindly helping me to analize on how he builds the paragraph. Thank you
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust law.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
======================================================================
The statement asserting individuals responsibility to obey just laws alongside to resist unjust law plays on recent human history. Regarding this, we should backward strictly seek a reflection on how just and unjust law can be determined. Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King said; a just law is a code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Yet, while law is constructed by many pertinent assumptions, there are no exact indicator of whether one side is exactly true over the other, as far as I am concern, the position for obeying just law and resist unjust law should be seek more closely.
Every member of the society lives under constraint of law, and each of them not only legally but also morally has to obey the just laws conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust law. Taking Nazi in World War II as an example. Nazi countries such as Germany and Netherlands enforced a number of horrific law to inflict and harm of the Jew while it was illegal to hide Jews from Nazi. At that time, many Jews were caught and sent to concentration camp where many suffered death. Regarding this, could our humanity accept the rules to obey such just laws? Or we should against the law in the name of humanity?
On the other hand, the definition of just an unjust laws shows us one of the difficulties with the idea of civil disobedience of unjust law. Some could argue the bias of which one is closely related to moral law or which one is out of harmony of moral law. People could argue that laws allowing abortion are unjust and should be disobeyed while, on the other spectrum, laws on against gay marriage are unjust. There is no way to objectively measured gay marriage is not rooted in eternal law. This means that the idea of obeying unjust laws is somewhat dangerous as it gives permission to anyone to disobey the legal law simply because their moral values are not in accordance with those laws.
To conclude, the responsibility to obey just laws and resist unjust laws in every member of society cannot be stood roughly as it followed by many related values. I agree, as the member of civil society, we should pondered many aspects with no infliction at all before obeying or not to obey either just or unjust laws.
Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust law.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
======================================================================
The statement asserting individuals responsibility to obey just laws alongside to resist unjust law plays on recent human history. Regarding this, we should backward strictly seek a reflection on how just and unjust law can be determined. Letter from Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King said; a just law is a code that squares with the moral law, or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas an unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal and natural law. Yet, while law is constructed by many pertinent assumptions, there are no exact indicator of whether one side is exactly true over the other, as far as I am concern, the position for obeying just law and resist unjust law should be seek more closely.
Every member of the society lives under constraint of law, and each of them not only legally but also morally has to obey the just laws conversely one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust law. Taking Nazi in World War II as an example. Nazi countries such as Germany and Netherlands enforced a number of horrific law to inflict and harm of the Jew while it was illegal to hide Jews from Nazi. At that time, many Jews were caught and sent to concentration camp where many suffered death. Regarding this, could our humanity accept the rules to obey such just laws? Or we should against the law in the name of humanity?
On the other hand, the definition of just an unjust laws shows us one of the difficulties with the idea of civil disobedience of unjust law. Some could argue the bias of which one is closely related to moral law or which one is out of harmony of moral law. People could argue that laws allowing abortion are unjust and should be disobeyed while, on the other spectrum, laws on against gay marriage are unjust. There is no way to objectively measured gay marriage is not rooted in eternal law. This means that the idea of obeying unjust laws is somewhat dangerous as it gives permission to anyone to disobey the legal law simply because their moral values are not in accordance with those laws.
To conclude, the responsibility to obey just laws and resist unjust laws in every member of society cannot be stood roughly as it followed by many related values. I agree, as the member of civil society, we should pondered many aspects with no infliction at all before obeying or not to obey either just or unjust laws.
