Final answer:
Individuals who resist laws due to their conscience can face legal repercussions, but history has shown through figures like Gandhi and Thoreau that civil disobedience is a peaceful form of protest that accepts punishment to highlight injustice. Treatment by the state varies, touching on issues of religious freedom and personal ethics.
Step-by-step explanation:
When individuals resist laws due to the dictates of their conscience, different governments have historically had different reactions, depending on the context and the nature of the law being resisted. Those who engage in civil disobedience, a form of peaceful protest where laws are broken deliberately to highlight their injustice, may face legal consequences. Civil disobedience advocates for non-violence and accepts the legal consequences as a means to bring attention to the cause.
Influential figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., and Henry David Thoreau have shown through history that while the state may impose punishments for such actions, these consequences are faced willingly to uphold a higher moral stance. Thoreau, for example, was willing to go to jail rather than pay taxes that funded a war he opposed, translating his experience into the seminal essay on civil disobedience.
However, the treatment of such individuals can also shed light on the state's tolerance for religious freedom and moral convictions, which can drastically vary from one society to another. Ultimately, those who follow their conscience against the law reveal the dynamic tension between personal ethics and state authority.