Every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey and resist unjust laws.
Write a response in which you discuss the extent to which you agree or disagree with the claim. In developing and supporting your position, be sure to address the most
compelling reasons and/or examples that could be used to challenge your position.
Throughout history the conflict between one’s own judgment and the judgment of the lawmakers has given rise to many conflicts, wars and revolutions. In that context, the claim that individuals should follow their own sense of righteousness by opposing laws that are in their opinion unfair and following laws that are fair is justified. Since individual judgment is subjective, however, I cannot completely agree with the claim.
One of the negative consequences of blindly following a state’s laws becomes clear when one considers authoritarian, ideologically extreme and fundamentalist countries. It is highly likely that power-hungry and oppressive governments like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union are not founded on and buttressed by the most ethical laws. For example, when my grandfather was stationed with the German army in the Czech Republic in 1945, he was tasked with executing five Czech partisans. As a soldier, he should have followed orders and could have been sent to prison or executed himself if he disobeyed. He managed to convince his superior that his pistol was rusty and would not fire and thereby saved the lives of the partisans by disobeying a direct order. When a state’s laws are in conflict with basic human codes of ethics, therefore, it becomes clear that one should disobey orders.
Not all laws, however, violate human rights, so the decision to follow or oppose them is not black and white. In some cases a subjective sense of what is right might actually oppose a collective sense of what is right. For instance, I remember arguing with my parents while in 5th grade in school that, based on my antipathy towards school at the time, I had a right to freedom and should not be obliged to go to school. In fact, going to school is required by law in Germany, and I was arguing to break the law based on my own set of principles and rights. Since a sense of righteousness can be subjective, it is sometimes reasonable to accept laws that benefit the whole of society as well as the individual - even if the individual is not willing to accept that as a universal truth.
I furthermore can’t completely agree with the claim with respect to the statement that society should obey “just” laws. There are certainly circumstances in which a whole society’s sense of right and wrong has been manipulated by years of propaganda. Consider the law passed in 1939 by Nazi Germany labeled the “Endloesung”, i.e., the final solution. That law deprived Jewish people of any human rights and set the scene for the holocaust. Through years of brainwashing, a large proportion of German society accepted that law and actually believed that Jews were an inferior race. Therefore, depending on the circumstances and the manipulative powers of a regime, even laws that appear just to some are utterly appalling to humanity as a whole. Hence, the subjective nature of right or wrong does not only vary from person to person but is also subject to manipulation and deceit. For this reason I cannot agree with the claim completely.
In conclusion, therefore, there are situations, such as when laws clearly oppose basic human rights, in which the claim is true and useful. However, an individual’s interpretation of what is right is often subjective and vulnerable to biased influences by powerful regimes. Therefore the truth of the claim is limited.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 8, column 274, Rule ID: SENT_START_CONJUNCTIVE_LINKING_ADVERB_COMMA[1]
Message: Did you forget a comma after a conjunctive/linking adverb?
Suggestion: Therefore,
... biased influences by powerful regimes. Therefore the truth of the claim is limited.
^^^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
actually, also, but, furthermore, hence, however, if, so, therefore, well, while, for example, for instance, in conclusion, in fact, such as, as well as, in some cases, with respect to
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 30.0 19.5258426966 154% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 12.0 12.4196629213 97% => OK
Conjunction : 25.0 14.8657303371 168% => OK
Relative clauses : 21.0 11.3162921348 186% => OK
Pronoun: 39.0 33.0505617978 118% => OK
Preposition: 78.0 58.6224719101 133% => OK
Nominalization: 9.0 12.9106741573 70% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 2829.0 2235.4752809 127% => OK
No of words: 564.0 442.535393258 127% => OK
Chars per words: 5.01595744681 5.05705443957 99% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.87326216964 4.55969084622 107% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.90858448949 2.79657885939 104% => OK
Unique words: 278.0 215.323595506 129% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.492907801418 0.4932671777 100% => OK
syllable_count: 881.1 704.065955056 125% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.6 1.59117977528 101% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 11.0 6.24550561798 176% => OK
Article: 5.0 4.99550561798 100% => OK
Subordination: 5.0 3.10617977528 161% => OK
Conjunction: 1.0 1.77640449438 56% => OK
Preposition: 9.0 4.38483146067 205% => Less preposition wanted as sentence beginnings.
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 25.0 20.2370786517 124% => OK
Sentence length: 22.0 23.0359550562 96% => OK
Sentence length SD: 40.3851457841 60.3974514979 67% => OK
Chars per sentence: 113.16 118.986275619 95% => OK
Words per sentence: 22.56 23.4991977007 96% => OK
Discourse Markers: 7.36 5.21951772744 141% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.97078651685 101% => OK
Language errors: 1.0 7.80617977528 13% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 10.0 10.2758426966 97% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 13.0 5.13820224719 253% => Less negative sentences wanted.
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 2.0 4.83258426966 41% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.197639177379 0.243740707755 81% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.0573798136223 0.0831039109588 69% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.047995270703 0.0758088955206 63% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.113790044811 0.150359130593 76% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.0397797757941 0.0667264976115 60% => OK
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.5 14.1392134831 95% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 49.15 48.8420337079 101% => OK
smog_index: 8.8 7.92365168539 111% => OK
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.9 12.1743820225 98% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 12.13 12.1639044944 100% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.48 8.38706741573 101% => OK
difficult_words: 134.0 100.480337079 133% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 12.0 11.8971910112 101% => OK
gunning_fog: 10.8 11.2143820225 96% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.7820224719 102% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 66.67 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 4.0 Out of 6
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.