But the person who places his conscience above the law, whether right or wrong, assumes personal moral responsibility for the social arrangements under which he lives. And so it dramatizes the fascinating and frightening possibility that those who obey the law can do the same. They can obey the law and support what exists, not out of habit or fear, but because they have voluntarily chosen to do so and are willing to live with their conscience after making that decision. “I learned that maybe other people can hurt my body, maybe they could lock me up, but I didn`t need to be afraid of those who hurt my body because they couldn`t hurt my soul if I didn`t let them.” This is dangerous because morality has this absolute claim to direct its own actions. Ethics gives us rules to follow unconditionally without ever questioning them: you shouldn`t steal, you should be honest, you should be loyal, and so on. But unconditionally obeying state laws is rarely a good idea. Laws are made by a parliament, and it is not a God-inspired body or any kind of higher wisdom. The people who make our laws are fallible, they can make mistakes; Quite often they are greedy, perhaps corrupt, they can be bribed and pressured, or they serve certain interest groups. So, in the end, the laws made by these people are not necessarily worthy of being followed unconditionally. I think we can start by rejecting an extreme position. This is the view that disobedience to the law cannot be justified under any circumstances. To take this position is to say one of two things: either every law that exists is a just law, or a greater injustice is always committed by breaking the law.

The first statement is simply false. The second is very dubious. If this is true, then the signatories of the Declaration of Independence and the Germans who refused to carry out Hitler`s orders committed an injustice. The ensuing outrage from Labour and Liberal politicians was predictable. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten said he believes bad laws should be changed, not broken. Labor Secretary Michaelia Cash said the comments showed McManus was “a law in itself.” Sometimes people break the law, not because they don`t know the consequences, but because of the greatest law they follow: the law of morality. Whether through civil disobedience, vigilant justice or eco-terrorism, one cannot simply obey these laws that are morally evil. Moreover, one has a moral responsibility not to obey unjust laws, and to do so, those laws must be broken. The White Rose, a nonviolent group in Nazi Germany, broke several laws and actively opposed the regime of dictator Adolf Hitler because their conscience told them that killing Jews was wrong and unjust.

They followed their hearts and let themselves be guided by their own voices instead of the voices imposed on them. Martin Luther King once said, “Freedom is never given voluntarily by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed,” implying that individuals who are members of privileged groups in society rarely want to voluntarily renounce their privilege. Thus, breaking the law becomes a necessity and can be justified, because one cannot simply put up with such an unjust law. On the other hand, laws are supposed to be perceived as imperfect by some, and to make changes or correct the wrong thing, laws must be broken. For example, in the late 18th century, African-American citizens were discriminated against and neglected by civil rights and the right to vote. For this reason, to bring about change, Martin Luther King initiated the civil rights movement of the 1950s, breaking the law when he ended the legal segregation of African-American citizens. The violation of the law also led to the creation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Similarly, the American War of Independence and the Indian National Movement are some of the cases where people fight against the law to fight for their own rights. Even though everyone seems to be aware of the consequences of breaking the law, people break it in some way. To put this in perspective, from Gandhi`s contempt for British colonial laws to the empire`s monopoly to Martin Luther`s civil rights movement, the rules have always been broken. Therefore, the puzzling question, as old as Socrates, remains: “When is it justified for a citizen to act as his own legislator and decide whether or not he will obey the given law?” Although this question may have different answers, I believe that we citizens should be able to distinguish between good and evil. That is, if laws are to be broken for the good cause, even with severe consequences, breaking the law may be justified.

And if the law protects a society from crime and criminals, it must be observed. “An unjust law is itself a kind of violence. Arrest for their violation is even more so. Now, the law of nonviolence says that violence must not be fought by counterviolence, but by nonviolence. I do this by breaking the law and peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment. Mahatma Gandhi Liu was imprisoned in 2008 for his work with the Charter Manifesto 08. The manifesto called for an independent legal system, freedom of association and an end to one-party rule in China. He was arrested in 2009 on suspicion of “inciting subversion of state power”. He was sentenced to 11 years in prison and two years in prison. He was diagnosed with liver cancer in 2017 and obtained medical probation, then died in July 2017.