1

Should we be allowed to break the law?

By:
John Smith

For:


Date:
September 14, 2013













Philosophers, scholars, activists and judiciary officials, among others, have often
concerned themselves with whether or not breaking the law can be justified. Some questions
through which this query has been posed include, Should people be allowed to break the law?
2
Should individuals be able to ignore the laws in which they do not believe? Can breaking the law
ever be justified, morally or ethically?

In his situation, King discusses how many other countries are moving forward in how
they develop and treat others. He criticizes the United States as they creep forward with the pace
of a horse and buggy when it comes to civil rights. He discusses how those who were not while
have been lynched, beaten, killed, prosecuted, turned away from and denied access to certain
places and ridiculed with mean language. King and his followers supported the de-segregation
laws which opened up schools to children of all colors, but broke laws that he did not agree with
and, to clarify, he separated the laws into those which are just and those which are unjust. To
promote his point, he quoted St. Augustine as saying, An unjust law is no law at all, as it is not
rooted in eternal and natural law (King, 2013).

It is likely that there are situations in which breaking the law would be justifiable, as
proposed by King, as well as many others. Some, such as John Rawls, have set forth guidelines
to determine whether or not breaking a law would be justified. Rawls believed that there must be
a clear injustice, the act of disobedience must be a public act which is both non-violent and non-
threatening in nature and the perpetrator(s) must be willing to accept full responsibility,
including the penalties, for acting in their proposed manner. In addition, the acts must be carried
out with fidelity to the law. These guidelines can be viewed as a reasonable set of criteria in
determining whether or not an act is civil disobedience, which would be justifiable, or a blatant
disregard of the law, which would not be justifiable (Grant, 2007, p. 2-3). To this extent, people
should break laws that they do not believe in if they are unjust. However, individuals who do this
3
should be prepared to and be willing to accept all responsibility for their actions, including the
punishments and any other judicial consequences.

Non-violent civil disobedience, such as that practiced by Martin Luther King, Jr. and
many others, including the environmental organization Greenpeace, can be said to be justified as
there is a history of long-standing harm or violation of peoples fundamental rights, when legal
and policy means have failed to reduce the harms and violations, and when there is little time
remaining to address the problems (Zerbisias, 2011). Breaking the law for the sake of breaking
the law is not justifiable. However, when it is performed within the specific criteria discussed
herein, it may be justified. People do not have the right to harm others who have not given their
consent, but civil disobedience, which is non-violent and non-threatening by its very nature, can
be justified (Zerbisias, 2011).








4
References
Grant, S. (2007). Should we ever disobey the law?. Richmond Journal of Philosophy, 14 pp. 1-7.
Retrieved from: http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp14_grant.pdf
[Accessed: 15 Sep 2013].
The Atlantic (2013). Martin Luther King's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail'. [online] Retrieved
from: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/martin-luther-kings-letter-
f%3Cbr%20/%3Erom-birmingham-jail/274668/%3Cbr%20/%3E%3Cbr%20/%3EAlso
[Accessed: 15 Sep 2013].
Zerbisias, A. (2011). When breaking the law is justified. [online] Retrieved from:
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2011/06/10/when_breaking_the_law_is_justified.html
[Accessed: 15 Sep 2013].