Disobeying the Law Have Always

DISOBEYING the LAW have always been against nuclear empowerment of countries. After what happened to people in variety of nuclear-related incidents, I feel that countries have an obligation toward their people to abandon further plans in this connection. We can imagine the horrors and the havoc that nuclear devices would create if a war breaks out between two nuclear powers. For this reason when one Wednesday, my friend Susan, told me that there was a protest going on against nuclear enrichment, I was quick to tell her to sign me up for the demonstration. It was a few minutes later that she confessed that demonstrators are planning to trespass the nuclear power plan building.

Trespassing is against the law and trespassing government property can be downright criminal. But I wanted to support the cause and felt if the only way to make an impact was by doing something as drastic as breaking in, then I was ready. Susan was not happy with my decision. Though she is as huge a supporter of nuclear disarmament as I am, still she felt that such demonstrations indicated a clear disobedience of law. This resulted in a long argument in which my point was that it was sometimes morally and ethically correct to disobey the law. Susan obviously did not agree with what appeared to her rather radical way of thinking but with further arguments, she was finally convinced that there are situations where our moral and ethical duty to disobey takes precedence over our duty to obey the law.

The duty to obey the law has been so firmly engrained in our consciousness that anything against this automatically elicits a negative response. But when carefully studied, it becomes quite clear that duty to obey the law might not always be connected with our moral duties in other areas. We all understand that nuclear enrichment is a great cause of concern. In case of a war between two nations with nuclear power, the results would not only be disastrous, they will also be felt for ages. Do we want our children to suffer? Don't we want them to grow up in a healthy unthreatening environment? Are we concerned about their safety and future? What about the abnormalities that will occur in some children due to nuclear elements in the air? Is the state not disobeying its duty to serve the people by developing dangerous devices and weapons?

All these questions must be carefully considered. These questions and many like them indicate clearly that there are times when the political authority that wants us to obey the law must not only be disobeyed but must also be taught what is correct and what is not. In other words, there comes a time when one has to put his foot down in the face of law. Now let us see how philosophers and thinkers have discussed the subject. W.D. Ross feels that the duty to obey the law is grounded in the concept of exchange of goods. As we obey the law, we receive benefits in return. Or rather since we receive certain benefits, we should obey the law as a sign of gratitude. He contends:

Thus... The duty of obeying the laws of one's country arises partly (as Socrates contends in the Crito) from the duty of gratitude for the benefits one has received from it; partly from the implicit promise to obey which seems to be involved in permanent residence in a country whose laws we know we are expected to obey, and still more clearly involved when we ourselves invoke the protection of its laws...; and partly (if we are fortunate in our country) from the fact that its laws are potent instruments for the general good. (Ross 1930, p. 27f.).

The few important concepts emerging from Ross's argument include such noble thoughts as benefits, gratitude, implicit promise and potent instruments. But while this is generally true, it may not be so valid in cases such as the one described above. True, we should be grateful to the state but what if the same state is hurting our rights. As a citizen of this country, I have a right to expect certain goods such as protection of my health and life as well as that of my children. By developing military weapons that can hurt a large percentage of people if deployed, what the country is doing is the exact opposite of what it is required to do. If I am not getting the benefits I expect, this means I can disobey the law if the moral need to do so arises.

Gratitude then becomes a vague term. I am grateful to the state for something such as property on which I live, rights that I have had, access to education and healthcare I have enjoyed. In exchange for these, I am expected to obey the law. Fair enough! But if obedience of law hurts my rights or rights of some other person, should I still follow the law? This is the question that we need to ask ourselves. There is more than one case where we might actually end up hurting the moral rights of someone while obeying the law. For example a sick woman who is in critical condition needs to be taken to the hospital but we realize that the law does not permit breaking the signal in a state of hurry. In case I break the signal to get that woman to the hospital in time without endangering the lives of anyone else, am I committing an offence? Isn't disobedience of law in such cases a more desirable moral solution that obeying the law. Rawls puts it in these words:

shall assume, as requiring no argument, that there is, at least in a society such as ours, a moral obligation to obey the law, although it may, of course, be overridden in certain cases by other more stringent obligations. (Rawls 1964, p. 3)

There are thinkers who claim that obedience of law is directly connected with the concept of fair play. If I follow the law and you benefit, then you must follow the law so I can benefit. Important among these thinkers was Hart who claimed:

when a number of persons con! duct any joint enterprise according to rules and thus restrict their liberty, those who have submitted to these restrictions when required have a right to a similar submission from those who have benefitted by their submission. (Hart 1955, p. 185).