#53721 Disobeying "unjust" laws

[vorpal blade]

First, I’d like to thank Kirke and Cuddlefish for their polite and respectful responses to my question. And Cuddlefish, I thought your answer was excellent. I have to admit that I was a little disappointed in Kirke’s answer.

I’m glad the board clarified the concept that we do not have a right to disobey a law merely because we think the law is bad. I got the idea that some on the board thought differently because of question #53598. Walden, the questioner, asked “Should there be an addendum [to the 12th Article of Faith]: ‘... insofar as we, personally, find them to be good’?” Note that the addendum did not state “insofar as the laws are in fact good,” but only that we, personally, find them to be good.

Curious Physics Minor replied “I think the addendum is implied.” CPM’s answer is a little mixed, and I can see now that some of his answer might imply that in order for a law to be unjust it would need to violate God’s law. CPM also says “If you don't believe the law is just it is your right, nay, duty to refuse to convict someone under that law.” To me the word “believe” coupled with the word “personally” in the addendum, which CPM supports, implies that CPM is saying that you should disobey any law that you “personally believe” is unjust. At least, that’s what I got out of it, and so I wanted to ask in case others may have also gotten the same idea.


Kirke says in question #53598 that there are exceptions to the Twelve Article of Faith mentioned elsewhere in the standard works. He refers to D&C 134: 2, 5. He then goes on to say that

So men should sustain their governments “while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments.” There’s a case to be made that the DMCA’s goofy restrictions on backing up or ripping purchased DVDs are an infringement on the “right and control of property,” which verse 2 suggests is an inherent and inalienable right. If all this is true, we are clearly not required to sustain such a law.

The implication I got from this is that if we personally feel that a law infringes on the right and control of property then we clearly are not required to sustain such a law.

Well, so much for the justification for my question.

The problem I have with Kirke’s answer is that it begs the question, who decides whether a law is just or unjust? If there were some universally agreed upon standard to tell us which laws actually are unjust, and which are not, then it wouldn’t be simply a matter of opinion. Even when we say that a law contradicts God’s law we are saying that we think, or in our opinion, the law contradicts God’s law. Not everyone interprets God’s law or civil law in the same way, so we can’t be sure we aren’t just rationalizing our behavior when we say a law actually is "unjust."

I suppose that there might be some law made that we would all agree is contrary to God’s law, and we wouldn’t need a direct revelation to tell us that. I’m just thinking that a lot of people feel confident that certain laws conflict with God’s laws, while others are equally confident that those same laws are "just" in the eyes of God.

Interesting how extreme moral cases are sometimes used to justify disobeying laws we merely find inconvenient to obey. But…I also don’t wish to invoke Goodwin’s law.

[Waldorf and Sauron]

Ah, you're so close to that moment of philosophical existential crisis, I can almost taste it. You're hitting on an issue that has been discussed for centuries, and for which there are no easy answers, only more questions.


I think all we can do is try to do what we think is right. If that sounds like I'm skirting the issue, I am, because it's pretty much an impasse.

[Marduk]

It might do well when considering such (that is, when we desire to use our allegiance to God as reasoning for disobeying earthly law) to be absolutely certain that is why we are disobeying this law. I think only direct conflict with revealed doctrine (whether revealed through the prophets, scripture, or personal revelation, or any of the handful of other means by which direct revelation come) can justify disobeying said law. Like you say, vorpal, we must not disobey simply because we find the law inconvenient, or clumsy, or ill conceived. We in this country have too many means at our disposal for disagreeing with those sorts of laws, to resort to simply ignoring them.

I would suggest, before we disobey a law we consider to be unjust, we ask, "Will obedience to this law impinge upon my ability to serve God?" If the answer is no, then we have no right to simply disregard it.

However, does such apply in a country whose government is so oppressive as to deny its denizens the capacity for respectful civil disobedience? That I won't comment on, at least not yet.