Friendship 9: Unjust Law

Words: 1023
Pages: 5

History has recorded many instances where individuals from exceptional backgrounds have been denied justice or their natural rights due to unjust laws. In the case of Friendship 9, there exists a conflict between the unjust set of laws, which caused the segregated lunch counter, and the natural rights that the members have. This begets a question, “Should the members of the Friendship 9 oppose the law to fight for their natural rights or to just accept and obey the positive law?” Since that member is unable to wait until 2015 for his legal but unjust conviction to be legally “overturned”, the time taken for each action (civil disobedience or limited form of violence) to make concrete changes to the law plays a crucial factor. If he engages …show more content…
This infringes on the liberty of the Friendship 9 member. It is also morally justified because according to Rawls, even though ‘citizens have an obligation to obey in a just state, it is morally permissible to break the law in a state in order to right specific circumstances’ (Rawls, 1971). Furthermore, with Arendt’s definition of power, which refers to ‘the combined strength of all individuals in a group’ (Arendt, 1970), the group of nine African-Americans has the capacity to make changes to the unjust law. To do so, it is important to first draw attention to these unjust laws through acts of civil disobedience or limited form of violence. But, the ultimate aim of this is still to make changes to the unjust …show more content…
It is a non-violent resistance undertaken to make changes to the law or government policies. However, despite the member’s unfair plight that makes civil disobedience morally justified, I would not recommend it. There are two main reasons why this is so. Firstly, in most cases of acts of civil disobedience, there is no immediate change to the law. It often drags over a long period of time. Secondly, there is a possibility of failure even after waiting for such a long time. The use of civil disobedience as a strategy against the apartheid by the African National Congress (ANC) in South Africa is a classic example. Even after 48 years (1912-1960) of non-violence campaigning, it did not manage to evoke changes to the unjust law. The ANC was instead faced with violent oppression where the government opened fire against the demonstrators as seen from the Sharpeville massacre. To worsen the situation, the government even banned ANC and all acts of civil disobedience. Hence, the use of civil disobedience may sometimes lead to injustice such as sacrificing innocent lives. As such, I would not recommend civil disobedience to that member of Friendship 9 as this form of resistance against the government spans over a long period of time and there is a possibility that no positive change would be made to the law at the end of the