Is it morally right to break unjust laws?
Does a Malaysian ever have the right to break an unjust law? Knowing that the law is in force, does he have the moral duty to obey it?
Perem Segar, Loyarburok
One division would claim that any act of disobedience should be prosecuted and are very frustrated when such wrongdoers are not convicted. The other group are sympathetic to some acts of disobedience, where they occasionally disprove of prosecutions and are pleased for acquittals.
Both parties however believe that man has a universal duty to obey the laws even if he disapproves of it because in a society, man is bound by his duty to his fellow citizens, who also obey law that they do not like to his benefit.
But is this an absolute duty though? Do we only owe our duty to the State? Duties can be various — the duty to our family, God, and most importantly in the authors view, the duty to our conscience. A person evaluates what is right in the end after pondering on each duty he has. If he considers other duties to offset his duty to the State, then breaking the law is foreseeable.
The duty to the State is also complex one. Some view it as fundamental, and some obey the state grudgingly and view those who break unjust law as moral heroes. There are also some who put the State so high up, that anything the State dictates must be followed. Then there are those who put the State much lower, and claim that man has no moral duty to obey the State.
Most of us are assumed to be somewhere in the middle — we believe that man has a moral duty to obey the law, but has the option of following his conscience when his conscience conflicts with his duty to the State.
When a person chooses to follow his conscience instead of the State, civil disobedience usually materialises. In a nutshell, civil disobedience is when protesters deliberately break a law. The laws they break are usually the ones they are protesting against, such as segregation laws, draft laws etc.
