I concur with both the views put forth by the author and believe that it is not just the luxury, but the responsibility of each individual to comply with just laws and oppose unjust laws. Only a combination of the two can ensure the highest good and well-being of the people. However it is often asserted that it is not always possible to decide the merit of a law and that what is just for one might be unjust for another. In subsequent passages I would be exploring all these various aspects in brief.
Laws provide structural guidelines that delineate behavior and guarantee people their freedom while ensuring that the rights and freedoms of others are not impinged. In absence of legislature, we would be ruled by a state of anarchy and chaos with each individual plundering and pulverizing at will and the law of the jungle where the mighty thrive and the weaker perish, would be true for the human race as well. If for instance, the law guaranteeing right to security of each individual was disobeyed, every individual would be free to kill anyone else they might have the slightest grudge against.
It would be necessitated to define what an unjust law is. Laws when proposed and implemented are done to protect the interests of the society or atleast a section of it. In the case of the latter it can easily be argued that what is good for just for one section my not be good for another. In judging the merit of a law, however, we must weigh it on our moral compass and further consider whether the law protects the interest of the minority and the marginalized. Given this outline, laws that protect the interests of women cannot be said to be unjust. On the other hand, laws in US that legalized slavery or the segregationist laws that existed prior to the civil rights movement, are examples of unjust laws.
Egregious laws such as the two highlighted above resulted in severe subjugation of individuals and legalized various atrocities committed against them. As responsible citizens it is our right to opposed such laws so that the interests of the majority and the weaker sections of the society are protected. Abraham Lincoln, being a white, had no compulsion to oppose slavery. However he did so on humanitarian grounds and helped ameliorate the conditions of millions of colored people who were suffering extreme humiliation and debasement. If Martin Luther King Jr. had not advocated the rights of black Americans, it would be impossible to match the growth and progress the country has made.
Even when laws are consistent for the entire populace but immure their rights as individuals, the laws would be classified as unjust. Such laws are prevalent in autocratic and dictatorship governments. These laws are only promulgated to the protect the interest of the ruler and the cost of the well-being of the citizens. The state has wide-sweeping powers to undertake any action that it believes is against the interest of the state and several human rights violations have taken place under the garb of state protectionism. As evidenced by Arab Spring, such injustices perpetrated against the denizens cannot continue unabated forever and sooner or later there would be an uprising to overthrow the tyrannical leader. The economic costs of such rules and uprisings are leviathan and arrest the growth of the nation.
Through examples along a diaspora of situations it has been established that questioning egregious laws has a direct impact on the well being of the populace and the growth and prosperity on the nation. Questioning authority then, in instances of gross misconduct by the authorities, becomes our responsibility. At the same time, disobeying laws that are just would lead to disarray and chaos and curb the freedom that law are supposed to grant us.
gre5dot5 