Catalyst for Change: The Law and What to Do When Disagreeing with It

This blog was taken word for word from sa recent discussion I had in an Ethics class regarding what the term "law" stands for. I was pleased with the way it came out, even if I may have strayed from the mark as far as defining what the law stands for.

Hope you enjoy it as much as I was pleased with it.

Good day all, 

            The realm of law has always interested me. One of the aspects of the subject that I find so intriguing is the somewhat fluid relationship counter-cultures can have with the legal system. As I also mentioned in my discussion post, the law is typically born out of societal values. However, these societal values are often governed by the majority. This idea forces some counter-cultures to essentially pick and chose the laws they follow, or at least agree with. In many ways this dissent can also bring about change. One example of this is the idea of civil disobedience brought to the forefront of our culture by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King can be paraphrased as stating, “Riots are voice of the silenced.” King himself did not practice violent protests, as he knew that peaceful protests were a revolutionary way to get people’s attention (and backing) in a positive manner. This is captured by Kevelson when she states that it becomes the obligation of citizens to ensure their own rights when an oppressive government has overstepped its bounds (2002). As a result King was able to be a catalyst for change in Civil Rights and in the corresponding federal law.

            Summarily, the law governs the land, but it is clear that in trying times, citizen’s devotion to these laws may wax and wane.

Reference

Kevelson, R. (2002). Dissent and the anarchic in legal counter-culture: a Peircean view. Ratio Juris, (1), 16. Retrieved from https://lopes.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsgao&AN=edsgcl.87011174&site=eds-live&scope=site