Yes, people have an obligation to follow the law, even if they personally disagree with it. This is because laws are meant to keep order and protect the members of a society, and following them is key to this. Allowing people to simply ignore laws they don’t agree with can lead to chaos and anarchy.
One example of this is found in Dr. Martin Luther King’s Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he argues that civil disobedience is sometimes necessary when people have a responsibility not just to obey the laws but also to live up to the moral code of a society. He writes that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”, but also acknowledges that such disobedience should only occur when there is “a concrete and powerful plight” and when “law and order are pressed to the extreme.” In other words, civil disobedience is justifiable only in certain, extreme circumstances, when all other means of peaceful protest have been exhausted and when the injustice of the law is so egregious that it overrides one’s obligation to obey it.
Although people may have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws, this does not negate the fact that there is still an obligation to adhere to all other laws. People must be wary of the repercussions and consequences of noncompliance, as this could lead to further instability and problems. Furthermore, breaking the law can be a slippery slope, as it can lead to people believing it is acceptable to ignore or defy other laws.
In conclusion, people do have an obligation to follow the law, even if they personally disagree with it. Civil disobedience may be morally justified in certain circumstances, but such actions should be taken thoughtfully and after all other options have been exhausted. Disregarding the law can lead to chaos and instability and can be a slippery slope that could eventually erode the social order. It is therefore important for citizens to uphold their duty to follow the law, even when it feels unfair or oppressive.