Is it ever justifiable to break the law?
“Ever justifiable”: set a criteria for such a question. Possible criteria that you can set: 1) law implemented is unlawful/ unreasonable e.g. when the punishments outweigh the crime 2) breaking the law suffices as the last hope/action and it actually benefits society as a whole.
Law: A set of rules/legislations that follow a social contract theory.
Assumption: Other peaceful means of handling the problems are not viable, resulting in individuals having to break the law.
Non-Justifiable Arguments
- It may be counter productive and may result in the country breaking down into lawlessness.
- It may invalidate the people efforts in breaking the law in the long run. The law exists for a reason. It exists to make people feel safe in the face of possibility of lawlessness.
- It may subsequently open up a myriad of “valid reasons” for breaking the law, making other laws redundant in a sense.
Justifiable Argument
- Provided the cause is a noble one and breaking the law is used as the last resort and this action benefits society as a whole. One should also consider if there is a high chance of success of breaking law in order to preserve the rights of individuals.
P.S These discussion points are raised during class by students themselves. If you have any other additional points or to contest any of these points, just type them in the comment section.
