Being Morally Justified in Disobeying Laws We Consider to be Immoral

We believe that the answer to the question that an immoral breach of law is morally reasonable is largely dependent on our understanding and opinion of our legal status. In this issue, everyone can be categorized into two large categories. I fall within the first category of these categories, regardless of whether the law requires or not, comply with the law through social contracts, regardless of the obligation of our moral obligation to the moral status of the law People believe they have obligation. .

Dr. Martin Luther King writes the difference between the moral law and the immorality law in a letter to Birmingham Prison. His argument is that moral people have moral responsibility to destroy these laws by disobedience of citizens if the law is immoral. Ignoring immoral and unethical behavior, the country is morally destroyed and leads to complete moral death. In the event that the rule of law collapses, our people not only take responsibility for moral responsibility not to obey what is left behind by the law, but also actively contribute aid and consolation to immoral tyrant attacking the United States There are times when you are punished.

We are morally obliged to obey even unfair laws. This ethical problem solves what we usually call civil disobedience. In order to discuss the disobedience of citizens properly and to discuss whether it is moral to violate the law, we must first explain the characteristics of citizens' disobedience. Peter Singer's "Practical Ethics" began expressing disobedience of citizens as "disagreement of moral opinion" and "even if the law protects and sanctions our completely wrong thing"

By establishing an ethical responsibility that violates an unfair law, money makes it impossible to deny that civil disobedience is an important freedom. If freedom to pursue morality and pursuit of morality mean that the citizens do not comply, it is necessary to recognize that disobedience of citizens is necessary freedom. Of course, things are not that simple. Although the king's letter provides a viable reason for accepting civil disobedience, it is assumed that violations of unjust laws are moral. However, many writers and thinkers oppose this argument and their arguments must be solved if King's argument is accepted.

Civil disobedience is a deliberate violation of law to promote ethical principles and change government policy. It may be limited to violation of certain laws deemed to be unfair, such as the civil rights movement of the United States in the 1960s. Alternatively, civil disobedience may include other law violations to raise fraud concerns, such as property damage, penalty or tax payment default, construction work and interference with illegal invasions. People who practice all kinds of civil disobedience are willing to accept the results of their actions as a means to promote their behavior. Henry David Thoreau first described the principle of civil disobedience in the article "On Responsibility for Civil Disobedience" in 1849. He believes that when conscience and law contradict, individuals have an obligation to promote justice by breaking the law.