"There are two types of laws: just and unjust. Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and, even more importantly, to disobey and resist unjust laws."
The speaker asserts that each individual in a society has a responsibility to disobey and resist the unjust ones. However, as far as I am concerned, such responsibility is neither jurally valid nor practically feasible and thus does not exist. People often try to modify the laws instead of passively disobeying the unjust laws.
To begin with, citizens are never authorized by the laws to disobey and resist it. Therefore, any attempts to offend the laws are not allowed and lose validity whether these are just laws and unjust laws. Laws are established to regulate and set limitation for people's behaviors so as to maintain the stability of the society. This is almost always the case whether in contemporary society or in the ancient society, in authoritative countries or in democratic countries. It is for this reason that no laws that ever exist would entitle the individuals with the rights of disobedience and resistance. Such laws, if ever existed, make possible for people to choose freely whether to obey the laws or disobey them regardless of what are codified and therefore such laws exist in name only. In a sense, individuals never enjoy the jural rights to disobey and resist laws, whether just or unjust, let alone the responsibility.
In addition, the responsibility to resist "unjust" laws lack feasibility as its foundation. There does not exist a uniformed standard of justice for everyone because judgement of what is just often gained from personal experience, religious belief and social background, varying from one person to person. Moreover, when it involves the problem of economic interests, people's opinions may sharply contradict one another. For example, when domestic industries call for higher tariff so as to survive through the competition with overseas companies which...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document