Philosophy Paper

Okay, I wrote my first philosophy paper, but I need some help. Basically this paper after corrections, revisions, etc, will be the final for one of my courses. There is also a contest and the winner receives $500, even 4th place gets $100. The topic of the paper is Unjust Laws are not Laws at All. I am not allowed to take a position (yet), this segment is arguing for Unjust Laws not being laws, as arguing for them being laws is boring, generic, and easy, so I won't paste it here.

Basically you can help me by finding the weak points so I can fix them.

Unjust laws are not laws at all. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, still are not laws. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws on the other hand have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality. In nations as well, we refer to just systems, as real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, the fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize justice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict with the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. If I created a society, based upon Unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.
However, if one does not follow Unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the Unjust law the power of real laws. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceiving and acknowledging, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that is real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. They do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.

Thanks for any help....

usually i wouldn't do this but... my comments are in red


Unjust laws are not laws at all. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, they arestill are not laws. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. This previous sentence could be deleted because it is repetitive of what came immediately before it.Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws ,on the other hand ,have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality. In nations as well, we refer to just systems, no comma hereas real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, the fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize systematicjustice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict Are also in conflict with OR also conflict withwith the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. But what about the just laws in that nation? Simply having one unjust law does not mean the other laws in that system are not just. This is a critical flaw in your logic, since you haev the fallacy of one unjust law undermining all accompanying just laws, when in fact that unjust law only undermines itself and, to a limited extent, the governing body. That governing body may also regain legitimacy by abandoning/reforming the unjust law OR making just laws, even while maintaining the unjust oneJust laws can be neither created nor destroyed. I believe you are using the term 'just laws' to speak about what Locke and others describe as "natural law". These are not the same thing! A just law may be made to address a situation which was only created by society/government. A law stating that a government cannot spy on its own people may be considered just, but it is not natural, because government itself is artificial. Natural laws are the right to life, liberty (freedom of choice etc.), property and some others, depending on which philosopher you're reading.They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. <-- sentence is not complete or is simply fucked up. Fix itIf I created a society, based upon Unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.
However, if one does not follow Unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the Unjust law the power of real laws. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws.however you disagreed with this point earlier when defining Just laws as superior to Unjust ones, since the power of Just laws includes natural legitimacy and natural agreement with people's pursuit of happiness, and thus can be logically obeyed more often. That argument you make places limitations on the power of Unjust law It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing i do not think this is a real word. is it? to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceiving and acknowledging, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that is real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. incomplete sentenceThey do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.is this really where the paper cuts off?

pretty good paper. needs another round of editting for grammar. You must distinguish between Natural Laws and Restrictive Laws, since both can (in some schools) be considered Just.

also, spacing needs to be done if you expect anyone other than my foolish self to respond to this.

Yeah, its half way done, not even really. The first part is me saying unjust laws are laws which I didn't want to include. I haven't taken my position yet really, which would continue to go more into the appearance/existance/consequences etc point.

The natural law thing you brought up I thought was very interesting.

"it is not natural, because government itself is artificial"

this is a fundamental part of my arguement, being that if humans are natural creatures then anything they create is also natural, including government. which now means I need to address that. fuck. shit. Wait I could just distinguish further between just law and natural law and maybe that will solve it. hmm. I could go into further detail but Im sure you get what I am saying.

There are a lot of fragmented sentences, sentences that just don't make sense, sentences that need more clarification, and grammer issues. Space the paragraphs and I'll fix some things for you. Grammar happens to be my forte.

Edit: It would actually be better if you just uploaded the word file.

I can make a couple of general comments, since I'm not that big a stickler on grammar (green squiggles in Word, (passive sentence) consider revising, "F*** it. It sounds better.") I can't really help you on subject matter, since I had to take Ethics, with almost no focus on Law.

You need to make your stance known as soon as possible. Otherwise, the readers don't know where you intend to go with it. It's about two pages or so in Word, and that's fine for an introduction for a thesis paper (25+ pages) but even on those your position has to be known immediately, the first sentence even. Then you can take all the time you want setting up a basis for your primary points and arguements.

You also use the term "Unjust Laws" too often in the beginning as the first two words in a sentence. It makes it sound too...preechy, narrative instead of an argument.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ryllharu

I can make a couple of general comments, since I'm not that big a stickler on grammar (green squiggles in Word, (passive sentence) consider revising, "F*** it. It sounds better.") I can't really help you on subject matter, since I had to take Ethics, with almost no focus on Law.

You need to make your stance known as soon as possible. Otherwise, the readers don't know where you intend to go with it. It's about two pages or so in Word, and that's fine for an introduction for a thesis paper (25+ pages) but even on those your position has to be known immediately, the first sentence even. Then you can take all the time you want setting up a basis for your primary points and arguements.

You also use the term "Unjust Laws" too often in the beginning as the first two words in a sentence. It makes it sound too...preechy, narrative instead of an argument.

---

Well actually my professor wants me to argue both sides before explaining my position. Your last point, well I am using the words Unjust Laws as if it is a term almost, since I don't yet know what an Unjust Law is.
NOTE: this isn't an english paper by the way, I think I am doing an okay job trying to atriculate the moving abstract things my mind comes up with. read some kant if you want to see some horrible grammar etc.

Well I tried to group your thoughts together to try and make the reading more fluid. The sentences I moved are in green, the things I think aren't needed are underlined and the few changes are in red. At the moment I don't have time to throughly recheck as I have to be leaving for a hockey game but I hope my opinion helps.


Unjust laws are not laws at all. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, still are not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws on the other hand have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality.

In nations as well, we refer to just systems, as real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, The fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize justice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict with the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. If I created a society, based upon unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice.

Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few, who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.

However, if one does not follow unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any official law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the unjust law the power of real laws. To say an unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceive and acknowledge, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that are real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. They do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.

You can argue both sides, I had to do it a lot in my last philosophy course (Asian philosophies and religions, great class, a real midnblower). It's still important to make the stance you are going with known before you start.

The way I've always liked to do it is say which point I'm agreeing with, give the reasons why, and then go into the reasons why the other one *could* be valid, but is still not quite as right. When making an persuasive paper, the best way is to take one side, agree with the one, and shoot the other down. You still have to thoroughly explain both sides, but it gives it more of a focus and impact when you pick one from the beginning.

This is basically what I've been told to do since about the 8th grade, after we were finally told to cover both sides on persuasive essays.

NOTE: Stream of consciousness can be one of the best writing styles for poetry, but is one of the worst for persuasive essays, or position and research papers. Yours is a little like that, and you definitely want to stay away from that. Even for a philosophy paper, the more clearly your point gets across, the better. There's a reason why no one likes Kant.

SK. Can you paragraph your essay please? I'm having trouble reading that.

And you might want to restructure your essay. I'm having trouble following your line of thought. But it's a good start.

I usually like to break it down into questions and your pointers, so thats its more easy to follow. Right now I'm not following you at all. Break it down into questions, add up the points, then write it out in a clear, concise, and articulate manner. This is what I've broken down in your essay.

Your Stand : 1.Unjust laws are not laws at all.

What is the Law?
1.The Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone.

What is an Unjust Law?
1.Not Applicable to everyone.
2.It is a Law that doesn't bring justice. - You'll need to talk about what is justice
3.has no expectation of obedience
4.Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed = Meaning that it's illogical? Or fallible?
5.If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. - It requires to be legitimate (approved by the legal state body?)
6.Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. - If they have similar consequence, it doesn't make it justified. (?) ~ What is justice?
7.Outside of societal normality - Example: Jim Crowe Laws (?) Or Simply, laws that don't make sense, cannot be adhered to? (Similar to point 4)
8. Involved with Tyranny. Oppression of the weak.
9. Unjust laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law – Created without thorough thought process? Not Well enforced laws? Or impossible to enforce? (Same as point 7 and point 4)
10. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another. – Same as Tyranny (Part 8)
11. To say an unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws – Unjust Laws not as powerful? Needs more explanation

Why Do Unjust laws still exist?
1. Unjust laws have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because the peoples state of fear to challenge the legal system.
2. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. - ???? Probably could be somewhere else.
3. People don’t question the laws or question enough.

How should a Just Law be carried out? What are Just Laws?
1. It must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced
2. Expectation of obedience.
3. Requires Legitimacy (Who makes it legitimate?) - Authorised by who?
4. Punishing those that act outside of natural human societal normality
5. because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness (?) – This is not a correct statement btw.
6. Exist forever? - "Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law."


Wtf statements. No idea what your thinking in these.

1. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law.

2. To say an unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it.
~ What legitimacy?


3.If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver).

First comment: Make paragraphs. A single block of text this size is a crime against humanity.

Second comment: The overall tone of this sounds like someone rambling on about unjust laws. Imagine two guys casually arguing over some philosophical matter - that's what this sounds like. Maybe this is due to not having paragraphs, which creates a feeling of poor structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Board of Command

First comment: Make paragraphs. A single block of text this size is a crime against humanity.

Second comment: The overall tone of this sounds like someone rambling on about unjust laws. Imagine two guys casually arguing over some philosophical matter - that's what this sounds like. Maybe this is due to not having paragraphs, which creates a feeling of poor structure.

---

Thanks everyone for the input, Apraxhren and Stoopider etc.

My style when it comes to this kind of stuff is to just start typing, then I can try to see where I was going and revise. It is not structured at all, it can sound a bit like rambling, but I think I do a good job of staying on the main point. Many philosophers don't, mainly what is called "hard" philosophy ie Hegel, Kant etc.

Some may be able to, but I can't articulate abstract concepts while worrying about structure, grammar, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SK

Some may be able to, but I can't articulate abstract concepts while worrying about structure, grammar, etc.

---

I'm the same way. However it's still a good idea to organize your thoughts (perhaps as Stoopider suggested) instead of writing them out in stream-of-conscious ramblings, as Ryllharu said. This will make it harder to go back and reorganize later on in the writing process.

What I usually do is separate each "concept" in to its own paragraph, and then once I've got all the information I need, I pick and choose from each paragraph, placing the necessary points where they would need to be in the final draft.

Since you are forming a logical argument, you have to make sure that one statement logically follows from the last. So far it seems you haven't done this. Your sentences are also extremely choppy, and you need to fix grammar mistakes/run-on sentences/etc. If you do upload a word file, I wouldn't mind proofreading it, which is my guilty (nerdy) pleasure. Good luck.

Yup, break down your essay into portions and re-write it. At the moment it's everywhere, you have good points, but it's hard to follow your train of thought reading the essay. You might want to restructure it. It's not awful, just needs structure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoopider

Yup, break down your essay into portions and re-write it. At the moment it's everywhere, you have good points, but it's hard to follow your train of thought reading the essay. You might want to restructure it. It's not awful, just needs structure.

---

Thanks for the advice. Yeah, my mind is very every which direction, I had attempted to direct it in which I spent 4 hours not writing anything. So, I try to just get my thoughts on paper and then revise. Good thing is I have till the end of the semester.

You might want to do some reading on the earliest thinkers of the Law. I think Thomas Aquinas is one,

"St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts the human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

Probably might want to read up on some of the earliest thinkers of the law. Martin Luther King is an interesting one as well. He talks alot about unjust laws.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King

" * One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

* In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?"

Hmm.. Wish I can help more, but I never studied nor majored in Philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stoopider

You might want to do some reading on the earliest thinkers of the Law. I think Thomas Aquinas is one,

"St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law. Any law that uplifts the human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statutes are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality. It gives the segregator a false sense of superiority and the segregated a false sense of inferiority."

Probably might want to read up on some of the earliest thinkers of the law. Martin Luther King is an interesting one as well. He talks alot about unjust laws.

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King

" * One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.

* In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery?"

Hmm.. Wish I can help more, but I never studied nor majored in Philosophy.

---

I read the MLK thing, and I'm reading Aquinas' thing right now along with some others' stuff.

Here's an update:

III
Justice is the system of consequences that naturally derive from any action committed by the individual. For every action committed by the individual(s) there will be an equal, deserved reaction. Naturally every negative action will spawn a reverse reaction in answer to it; the negative action will be answered to with a negative reaction. Every positive action is the entire opposite, in that it will be reacted to positively. A negative action can never be positive to some, and the positive action can never be negative to others. A just law can never be created nor destroyed, since the just law is only a formality for the natural consequences to negative actions.
Although justice is a natural system of the world, its consequences to reactions are not known to all. Humans react to the actions of another, whether negatively or positively, because of the system inherent in nature we call justice. Each human only knows to react, not what the exact proper reaction is. These reactions can differ based on culture, religion, sex, upbringing, and other reasons. Laws are needed to insure that the consequences for negative actions are equal and deserved. A system of laws must be intended for this purpose, reaching a common level of justice applicable to all. This common level of justice is meant to mean the common level of consequences to negative actions, and insure that the consequences are in accord with justice.
Any rule made formal by passage through a system of law is no longer simply a rule, but a law actualized by legal force. The term legal force is used to describe the force of consequence to a negative action for which the law is intended. These laws, being representations of natural order, are referred to as Just Laws. Laws of just nature have always existed, and cannot be either destroyed or created. They can be expected to be obeyed just as a person is expected to breath. For a Law to have an expectation of obedience it must meet the following conditions; the law must be public: known to all in its application, the people must know of the law to follow it, explicit: that is the law is a necessary formalization of justice, the people must know the law is needed and will be broken, and uniformly enforced, the people should know the consequences of breaking the law are same for all. Today we call the aforementioned conditions legitimacy: a law must be legitimate in order for it to have an expectation of obedience. Just Laws, being representations of natural order, are already legitimate, and do not need to be designated as such. Laws whose legitimacy is unclear are questionable because they must be given the status they should have already had before their formalization as a law.
These questionable laws are referred to as Unjust Laws. These Laws are questionable because they are outside the bounds of justice. As aforementioned, the system we call Law is in place solely for the purpose of order. The order established must be Just, that is as close to natural order as possible, or disorder, in the form of violence, will occur. The people look to this system to insure consequences, on a common basis, are applied evenly, and deservedly, to all. This can be called a human attempt at the systemization of justice. Any law not in the bounds of this system, of justice, is not a law. A system which allows a law outside of justice to be formalized is not just itself, and therefore causes disorder, which cannot be called a system of law. The question now presents itself, is an Unjust Law a Law?
If it is remembered that a just law is a formalized representation of natural order, than it can now be said that an unjust law is a formalized representation of opposition to that order. While the Just Law only attempts to make standard the natural consequence to negative actions, the Unjust Law makes standard the unjust consequence to negative or positive actions. In explanation, the Unjust Law does not formalize a natural reaction to action, but the abnormal one, of no generality. This is made possible by the Unjust Law’s ability to influence the individual’s perception of justice, which is natural order, by intimidation or illusion of validity.
The Unjust Law is questionable in every way the Just Law is not, which may be called questions of legitimacy. If any law and its intentions are not made known to all, if its purpose of existence is unclear, and if it is not enforced indiscriminately, then its validity as a law nonexistent. An Unjust Law then lacks the legitimacy needed for it to be expected to be obeyed. If a law is not known to all, or made to not be known to all, or changed in retrospect to affect but a few, or many, but not others, if its establishment as a law is questioned because of its injustice, if it is not enforced evenly and deservedly to all, then the law cannot be expected to be obeyed by the people the law affects. If a law cannot be expected to be obeyed, but instead can be expected to be disobeyed, the law then has no function as a law. Without function as a law, that is order which resembles as closely to natural order as possible, the law then has no purpose in being called a law, and is a contradiction in terms. A Law which cannot be expected to be obeyed, which serves to cause disorder instead of order, which is Unjust in that it is not a reflection of natural reactions, good or bad, to actions, cannot be called a law.
While an Unjust Law may be empowered by force, it lacks the legal force which empowers all true, Just Laws. Remember that legal force can be defined as the force behind a natural consequence to negative actions. This force, which can be labeled justice, is intended to enforce natural order. Justice then fulfills its purpose in the natural order, the negative act is stopped from being committed a second time by the force of its consequence. This process is formalized and made standard with the passing of Law. Unjust Laws on the other hand enforce disorder by causing injustice to be formalized into law, which causes a disruption in the natural order established by justice. This disorder caused by Unjust Laws is a result of the conflict which erupts between those who follow Unjust Laws and those who oppose them. The force behind Unjust Laws can then be said to be oppositional to the legal force behind Just Laws. While the force behind Just Laws can be called legal in that it serves the purpose of stabilizing order, the force behind Unjust Laws cannot be called legal force in that it serves the purpose of destabilizing order. Force which does not serve the purposes of Law cannot be called legal force. Laws must be actualized by legal force. Unjust Laws, lacking legal force, are not actualized as Laws, and cannot be called as such.
While Unjust Laws do lack the legal force which actualizes True Laws, they are actualized by a negative force, that is, fear. Within the realm of justice consequences are restricted to negative actions, and for that justice is perceived as good and protective of the people. Returning to the earlier thought that justice is a term applied to the system of consequences for actions chosen by individual: a negative action results in a negative consequence. The aforementioned characteristics of justice are also the characteristics of law, being that law restricts consequences to negative actions, and is therefore thought of as good and protective. Any opposition to these characteristics within a system of law is contradictive to the purpose of law, questioning it as a system of law at all. Unjust Laws do not restrict consequences to negative actions, but to any actions lawmakers see fit, and cannot be thought of as good or protective. Unjust Laws can enforce consequences for positive actions, and none for negative actions, eventually causing disorder and dissent, its terming as a Law is then contradictive of the purpose of Law. The force behind Unjust Laws, that is, fear, causes the individual to ignore the natural order known to him, and to follow the law. The force of the law can enshroud the law in a fog of legitimacy, being that the people are too fearful of the consequences of the law to question its legitimacy. While obedience to Unjust Laws is strictly out of fear, obedience to Just Laws is out of reason. Laws are representations of natural order, a needed formalization in societies ruled by protocol. Unjust Laws are representations of disorder, a contradiction to any government attempting to establish order. A law which causes disorder and dissent is a contradiction to Law itself, and is not a law at all.
What is an Unjust Law then? Unjust Laws are formalizations of injustice, followed by those too fearful to challenge it. A law which is Just serves the purpose of law, that is: enforcing order. A law which is Unjust does not serve the purpose of law, and instead enforces disorder. Polar opposites cannot be referred to as the same thing, and to do so is to contradict the meaning of the word, in this case, Law. To insure the further existence of laws, governments, and recognition of justice, laws which are unjust cannot be called laws, and should be known as what they are: tyranny.

IV
Conclusion.
Any law which comes into passing must be just and moral, without these merits it is not a law. The effects of unjust laws coming into being unquestioned have resulted in the deaths of millions in the last century alone, most clearly with the deaths of six million or more non combatants in Europe during the Second World War. These laws were followed out of fear, not out of reason, as the murdering of millions can only be done. I shudder to think at the possibilities of injustice being thought of as law, as its potential has only recently been seen. In a world where weapons continue to shorten the lifespan of human existence, one can only be comforted by the fact that justice can never die, and those courageous enough to do so will stand up in the face of tyranny, knowing the laws which hold them like chains are but fear, waiting to be extinguished. An Unjust Law cannot, and will never be, a Law, until the day law, and justice, is no longer known to those with reason enough to identify it.