According to this statement, each person has a duty to not only obey just laws but also to disobey unjust ones. In my view, this statement is too extreme, in two respects. First, it wrongly categorizes any law as either just or unjust:  and secondly,  it recommends an ineffective and potentially harmful means of legal reform.

First, whether a law is just or unjust is rarely a straightforward issue.  The fairness of any law depends on one’s personal value system. This is especially true when it comes to personal freedoms. Consider, for example,

the controversial issue of abortion. Individuals with particular religious beliefs tend to view laws allowing women an abortion choice as unjust, while individuals with other value systems might view such laws as just.

The fairness of a law also depends on one’s personal interest, or stake, in the legal issue at hand.. After all, in a democratic society, the chief function of laws is to strike a balance among competing interests. Consider, for example, a law that regulates the toxic effluents a certain factory can emit   nearby river. Such la vs are designed chiefly to protect public health. But complying with the regulation might he costly for the company; the thing might be forced to lay off employees or shut down altogether or increase the price of its products to compensate for the cost of compliance. At stake are the respective interests of the company’s owners, employees, and customers as well as the opposing interests of the region’s residents whose health and safe. In short, the fairness of the law is subjective. depending large h’ on how one’s personal interests are affected by it.

No related posts.