Laws real question is what should man

                      Laws
are created by humans so that there exists a certain order in society and to
make sure justice is prevalent. Are the people who are making the laws
infallible? Are they free of prejudices and biases? Do they always pass laws
which are just to every person in society?

The answers to all those questions
is ‘NO’. The real question is what should man do when these law makers pass
laws which aren’t fair to others that co-exist with us? In situations like
these, humans should break the laws and do the right thing.

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


order now

                       But then again, how do
you reason what is right? That it’s okay to break the law?

how do you give yourself the
courage to break the law and suffer its consequences? You think about the cause
you’re supporting and see the good or legitimate reason you’re fighting for. If
injustice or unfairness prevails in the society, then we should do what is right
and fight for what we believe in. If someone’s being treated in a way you
wouldn’t want to be treated, then change that. What you do to change that is
justified.

                           One should always
follow rules of conduct which they think are ethical and if these are against
the law, then its justified to break the law on moral grounds. You’re breaking
the law because the fundamental principles of right conduct are more important
than legalities, customs and enactments. Instead of conforming to the laws
made, you are conforming to rules of right conduct. Breaking the law on moral
grounds means you’re making a distinction between right and wrong and choosing
the right. Things that are not morally defensible should not be the law and if
it is it, it has to be broken on moral grounds.  Sometimes, conscience can be a higher
authority than the laws. If the law is unjust, it is regarded to be wrong. It
seems like that the law was made to be broken.

                           Martin Luther King
Jr. said, ‘Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust
and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail in order to arouse the
conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment
expressing the very highest respect for law’. If the law allows injustice to
anyone, it should be broken on moral grounds because no one should have to
encounter unfairness. If anyone breaks the law, it’s not going to be their
legal right to do that, it will have to be their moral right.

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

                     The British ruled over India for two hundred
years- they exploited our continent socially and politically. Not only that,
they viewed us Indians as culturally and racially inferior, discriminated against
us legally and socially, and subjugated, humiliated the Indians on the normal
public life during the period. The British subjected the Indians to famines and
left so many to die by sending the available food produce to Britain. Can
anyone here say that the law should not have been broken? That the Indians
should have just followed the laws because that’s what they’re supposed to do
legally and not fight for morality? No.

                      Gandhi called for strikes
and other acts of civil disobedience to fight against the British and break the
law peacefully, not violently on moral grounds. As the power of the British
kept increasing they kept passing unjust laws one after the other. Salt, which
was 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 vital
mineral from the British who not only exercised monopoly over its manufacture
but also imposed a heavy salt tax. The law made India’s poor suffer most under
these regulations and taxes. Is it not justified to break these laws on moral
grounds? It definitely is.

                
       According to Gandhi, defying the salt acts
imposed 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 mass
civil-disobedience which he called ‘Satyagraha’. He’s known to have said, “In my humble opinion, non-cooperation with evil is as
much a duty as is cooperation with good.” Gandhi set out with tens of thousands of Indians with the
purpose of defying the British law by making salt from sea water. His plan was
to work on the salt flats on the beach encrusted with crystallized sea salt at
every high tide but the police in an attempt to thwart this movement had
crushed the salt deposits into the mud. Notwithstanding this obstacle, Gandhi
simply picked up a lump of salt from the mud and the British Law had been
defied on moral grounds. The British made laws in such a way so as to exploit
the Indians specially the poor and keep them suppressed in a very wrongful
manner without taking the masses, the common people into confidence.

                     Through the civil
disobedience movement, the Indians learnt how to fight their political battles
on moral grounds by employing philosophical tenants like non-violence and
passive resistance to break the unjust laws. This case of civil disobedience
explains my claim perfectly that there are certain situations where it is
justified to break the law morally.

             
       There are many situations where things won’t
be as clear as Gandhi’s civil disobedience movement where the right thing to do
was break the law and these complex situations need to be addressed. The ban on
Gay marriage is one such law which created a huge outcry before the ban was
removed. Many homo-sexual couples broke the law and married each other. While
those individuals personally thought that they were justified in breaking the
law on moral grounds because they were in love many thought it wasn’t justified
because it was weakening the institution of marriage and was against many
religions. While homo-sexual people argued it was their moral right to break
the law because it is discriminatory and unconstitutional, others argued it is
in the interest of the public state to ban such marriage as

                    Both sides have different
set of morals, beliefs and values. Some say that gay marriage fundamentally
runs counter to religious beliefs of many- to legalize it would offend the
deeply held beliefs of many Christians, Jews and Islam’s who point out that it
goes against many sacred writings. Further, most said that marriage is for
procreation and each child needs both his father and mother. While others moral
views and beliefs told them that marriage is an internationally recognized
human right; it’s a civil right and a personal choice. The ban on such a right
creates humiliation not only for the homosexuals but also the children they
raise. Their final point being gay marriage will not harm institutional
marriage and night just work out better than heterosexual marriages. In such
cases, one has to be keep his mind open and reflect over his own moral belief’s
before deciding whether breaking the law is morally justified or not.