Raina (Year 12)
Editor’s note: During her time in Year 12, Raina successfully submitted this essay to the annual Northeastern University Humanities Essay Competition. Although she didn’t go on and win the competition, Raina was shortlisted as a finalist. CPD
Historically, the law has been perpetually undeserving to be followed. Never wholly, but a small percentage is enough to renounce an entire judicial system. The purpose of the just law must be defined as indiscriminately protecting the population. A mass disrespect of law could make fictional dystopias, from the Island [Lord of the Flies] to Gotham [Batman], entirely too real.
Bearing in mind, this is a code observed by largely western democracies. Theocracies adhere to religious principles to frame their laws, which sporadically hold a system that harms more than protects. Condemning those who break oppressive laws in protest because breaking the rules leads to tyranny, is not a feasible conclusion.
This of course incites a discussion on if the law is disobeyed in protest, is there a just approach to doing so; or are the people contractually obligated to follow the law, for the Socratic perception that the law is therefore we are.
Theocratic nations implement law based on religion, with the governing body having the purpose of serving the deity of the set belief system. Classically, political parties in theocracies were believed to be appointed by God and extremely common. Imperial Japan considered the emperor a descendent of the sun goddess Amaterasu, making him not just a representative of God, but a veritable divinity; Rome housed Emperor Constantine, who expanded the Roman Empire with faith that the Christian God had designated this mission himself; Egypt, similarly, saw the king as a liaison for God. For example in theocratic Rome, the Twelve Tables prohibited “unsanctioned religious activity” [Phillips 1991] such as sorcery with malicious intent – similar to the Witchcraft act of 1604, eventually leading to the notorious Salem Witch Trials.
Currently: Afghanistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia are three of contemporary theocracies. North Korea, while non-religious, takes characteristics from theocratic nations in that of the cult of personality surrounding the Kim Dynasty. Iran observes Islam as its official state religion and therefore precepts conform to an interpretation of Sharia. This allows for a penal code that authorises amputation, flogging, stoning and death. What’s more unfortunate is the minor misdemeanours that could lead to said punishments. The hijab law has seen much controversy alongside other ideologically misogynistic enforcements in Iran as of late. Women are subject to being disciplined for having bodily autonomy and the media has documented the growing protest and general law disobedience. Can we really persecute the women with the larger than life accusation of invalidating a legal system that also illegalises murder? Arguably the law itself is guilty by putting the afterlife before an earthly one. In this case, the law is undeserving of being followed because it harms the people. If it is objectively stated that the law must be obeyed, systems would never progress to a level of higher and more inclusive morality. Gandhi broke laws to overthrow the British colonial rule over India and Martin Luther King broke laws to desegregate the United States, within just the mainstream examples of empowerment in disobeying the law.
When oppressive laws are introduced to the argument, survival of citizens and their future generations under the unjust law comes into question. Do actions performed to survive and enable a better future warrant no limit? Must the law of human morality be obeyed in extenuating circumstances?
Peaceful protestors such as Gandhi as mentioned before, ensured he committed crimes in manners that did not infringe on other people’s rights. In 1907, The Boer legislature mandated for all Indians to register with the police. Gandhi’s refusal to cooperate did not negatively impact the uninvolved people around him. Despite his enormous role, can we call into question if Gandhi would have been able to achieve dismantling the British Empire without the aid of some others such as Subhas Chandra Bose and Bhagat Singh who took a diametrically contrasting approach? Bose was imprisoned multiple times as a result of his violent revolts and creation of an army; Singh was hanged to death for the bombing the Central Legislative Assembly in a plot to oppose the Public Safety Bill and mistakenly killing J.P. Saunders. He became a martyr and “a symbol; the act was forgotten, the symbol remained” [Prime Minister Nehru 1946]. While we have propped Gandhi on a proverbial podium to eschew glorifying violence and even villainising the movement as a whole, the impact of his confrontational counterparts cannot be ignored.
A utilitarian could advocate for necessary hostile measures as a means to procure an ultimately greater system ergo greater happiness to all.
Ursula K. LeGuin created “The Ones who Walked Away from Omelas” which encapsulates the difficulty of defining a greater good in objective calculations. The city of Omelas is a haven, a “fairy-tale” at the cost of one child’s suffering to power this civic peace. Utilitarian values grudgingly allow this society to blossom and in a real world allow laws to be disobeyed for the greater good. One child in exchange for the safety and prosperity of a whole population.
Equally, LeGuin incorporates anti – utilitarian imagery into the story, stating “only pain is intellectual, only evil interesting”. An interpretation of this could be that the true opulence in the Omelas’ lives come from an understanding of pain, therefore an appreciation for happiness.
This is an entirely subjective perspective on true happiness – consequently the only conclusion that can be discerned is that disobeying a law in a way that violates others’ rights for a good which is deemed greater cannot by any means be an impartial calculation.
A Kantian view of justice is that of freedom from human desire. Acting within a set conduct independent of want and therefore being less enslaved to acting in a manner to maximise happiness. This is arguably the principle followed by western law. Ultimately, inflicting harm in protest serves the risk of stigmatising the right for which is being argued. Ergo the law of human right to safety must be obeyed.
Democratic judicial systems, as employed by England, are difficult to fault in terms of not prioritising human safety. Posing the question: must residents of England obey the law? Largely, yes. For the sake of debate – a hypothetical: a person who is not guilty of the crime was convicted of murder. This leads to a life sentence with no chance of being acquitted. They are presented with the opportunity to escape, do they have a right to do so? None of laws in this circumstance are gratuitous, it is the miscarriage of justice that allows for a more nuanced debate.
Socrates placed in a more severe environment with an upcoming death sentence did not attempt to escape despite his students’ best efforts to aid him. Accused of corrupting youth, Socrates heavily disputed his conviction but acted in accordance with the death sentence imposed upon him. This is because he believed in his obligation to follow the law. He believed that corrupting the youth was a capital offense. Socratic ideology affirms a contractual agreement to follow the law in return for the state legitimising the marriage of one’s parents, the recording of one’s birth and general safety possible. Or in other words, the reciprocation theory of political obligation. By breaking the law to escape from a conviction he did not deserve, Socrates argued that he would be denouncing the spirit of the conviction, which would be a danger to youth. His indictment was not the fault of the law, but the accusers.
Contestably, many laws are dissolved when broken in self-defence. Escaping from a death or life sentence could be viewed as self-defence. On a purely theoretical standpoint, escaping from a wrongful verdict could be considered legal in the spirit of the self-defence law. The law states reasonable force can be used to protect oneself from harm. The utter certainty of harm in prison or in countries where it applies, death – it is reasonable to escape. It does not physically intrude on anyone else’s rights and the Socratic contract of obligation is infracted when the law no longer serves to protect the individual in question.
With caution, it can be concluded that the law as a supreme collective, does not always have to be obeyed. In the case of draconian, anti – equality policies, it is even important that we do not blindly accept the law as they are; though laws in relation to protecting others’ prerogative must be respected even when protesting because calculating the greatest goodness is uniquely impressionistic where law should take a stance of objective morality. Equally, when the law fails to protect an individual, they are permissible to use (reasonable) non – law abiding means to retaliate and survive under the same condition of respecting the safety of those around themselves. Every legal system, including theocracies, is manmade and contains flaws that intrinsically grant questioning. Ergo, under certain precaution: no.
Bibliography
Amnesty International (2021). Everything You Need to Know About Human Rights in Iran 2020 |Amnesty International. [online] Available at: https://www.amnesty.org/en/location/middle-east-and-north-africa/iran/report-iran/. [Accessed 13 Jan 2023].
D’Amato, A. (2010). Obligation to Obey the Law: A Study of the Death of Socrates. |Northwestern University of Law [online] Available at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1110&context=facultyworkingpapers [Accessed 9 Jan. 2023].
http://www.encyclopedia.com. (n.d.). Law and Religion: Law and Religion in the Ancient Mediterranean World | Encyclopedia.com. [online] Available at: https://www.encyclopedia.com/environment/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/law-and-religion-law-and-religion-ancient-mediterranean-world. [accessed 12 Jan. 2023].
Himma, K.E. (n.d.). Philosophy of Law | Internet encyclopedia of Philosophy. [online] Available at: https://iep.utm.edu/law-phil/ [Accessed 9 Jan. 2023].
Human Rights Watch (2015). Women’s Rights in Iran Human |Rights Watch. [online] Available at: https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/10/28/womens-rights-iran. [Accessed 13 Jan. 2023].
Sandel, M.J. (2010). Justice: What’s the right thing to do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Le Guin, U. (1993). The ones who walk away from Omelas. Mankato, Minn. Creative Education.
Maranlou, S. (2022). Hijab law in Iran over the decades: the continuing battle for reform | The Conversation. [online] Available at: https://theconversation.com/hijab-law-in-iran-over-the-decades-the-continuing-battle-for-reform-192037. [Acessed 13 Jan 2023].
Nehru, J. (1946). The discovery of India. London: Meridian Books, 22.
StudySmarter UK. (n.d.). Theocracy: Meaning, Examples & Characteristics |StudySmarter. [online] Available at: https://www.studysmarter.co.uk/explanations/politics/political-ideology/theocracy/ [Accessed 10 Jan. 2023].
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2019). Theocracy | political system. | Encyclopaedia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/topic/theocracy. [Accessed 10 Jan. 2023].
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2020). Subhas Chandra Bose | Encyclopaedia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/biography/Subhas-Chandra-Bose [Accessed 13 Jan 2023].
The Editors of Encyclopaedia Britannica (2018). Bhagat Singh | Encyclopaedia Britannica. [online] Available at: https://www.britannica.com/place/India [Accessed 13 Jan 2023].
The GSAL Journal 