Post your essay. Get expert feedback. For free.We're trying to help students improve their writing the hard way. Do you know students who want critical essay reviews from a professor of English Literature? Click like to share. Click here to sign up and post your own essay. We offer no paid services. All reviews are completely free.
Every Individual In A Society Has A Responsibility To Obey Just Laws And To Disobey And Resist Unjust Laws. - With A Free Essay Review
"Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws. 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."
I agree with the statement that individuals in a society have responsibilities to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws because if laws are unjust, people should resist laws to protect their rights and adjust unjust laws.
First of all, the terms just and unjust need to be better defined, and specified from which perspective when we discuss whether laws are just or unjust. A law may be unjust from an individual point of view, while it is just from the society or the majority citizens’ views. For instance the issue about abortion, abortion is unjust for some religious people, while it is just for others who are not religious. Since there is little controversial about the concept that justice should comply with the social norm and the value of the society in long run, and individuals should not disobey laws solely based on their interests, thus, we will narrow down to the situation in which we ask whether individuals should obey laws that are indeed unjust morally, but are held by the society or the majority.
When a law is truly unjust and will not benefit the society in long run, but is held by governments, is it appropriate for individuals to resist this unjust law or not? I believe people have rights to resist the unjust law if that law is against some higher value of morality or not a benefit to the society in long run, and further people should make a change on that law. For instance, there were many laws that induced or exacerbated the discrimination against black people in the United States. These laws were unjustified because they are against human rights and encourage racism. People like Martin Luther King stood out and led people to resist these unjust laws and protect human rights. They eventually made the Congress to annul these unjust laws and assign more justifiable laws to ensure human rights. I think as long as people resist unjust laws in appropriate ways, and their resistances indeed benefit the society in long run, individuals should be responsible for that.
However, laws are not made for people to break, instead they are made for people to follow and regulate actions of people. The society will be a chaos if people choose to obey laws freely based on their own judgements. Even if we are sure that resisting a specific unjust law will benefit the society in long run, people should resist in an appropriate approach that can minimize tragedy.
To sum up, I agree that individuals in a society have responsibilities to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws because if the law are unjust, people should protest their rights and adjust the unjust laws if resisting unjust laws can benefit the society in long run with an appropriate approach.
The first paragraph is weak because the reasons offered in support of the thesis are fairly banal, the syntax is very awkward, and you don't seem to be doing much more than begging the question: we should resist unjust laws because if laws are unjust we should resist laws ...
The second paragraph is a bit laborious. The approach you define there is more or less reasonable but it doesn't need such an elaborate and labored justification.
In the third paragraph, the meaning of "is held by governments" is unclear. "Make a change on that law" is a wordy version of "change the law." The paragraph as a whole uses an example to support an assertion, but does not offer any significant reasons for the position asserted.
Finally, you don't address "compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position" as the instructions require.