has to be used with more discrimination than is proposed here, which
appears to be a straightforward description of the material. Far better
would be to select from the material, quotations and evidence that
would support the arguments you want to make elsewhere in the essay.
In fact the same can be said for items 1 and 7, both of which again
appear to be descriptions for the sake of description. It might be useful
to know the different types of law and Dicey’s arguments for the impor-
tance of regular, rather than arbitrary law, but you will have to make
this case out: you will have to justify why you think this is relevant. For
example, there may be different implications for the question depend-
ing on the type of law involved, although on the face of it this appears
unlikely.Ordering
Having edited the material, you are now left to order your ideas from
the simple to the complex and, as in this case, from the peripheral
issues to those that are central. It seems that the best strategy is to
work from those situations in which there appears least doubt and very
limited discussion as to whether disobedience is justified, to those
cases where there is real doubt. In this way you will ensure that your
essay delivers you at the point that gives you the opportunity to discuss
all the important issues.
The obvious starting point, then, is with those governments who
pass unjust laws or laws that lack the legitimacy of popular support.
Few of us would not see some justification in the actions of those, like
Steve Biko and Nelson Mandela, who refused to comply with laws
passed as part of the apartheid policies of the South African govern-
ment, which was supported by only a minority white population.
The more difficult case is that of a democratically legitimate gov-
ernment such as that in Germany during the Third Reich, which passed
policies aimed at the minority Jewish population, denying them rights
as citizens to practise their profession and to marry non-Jewish
persons. Yet, again, few of us would have much difficulty in com-
mending those who bravely refused to comply with the law, and
rescued Jews who otherwise would have been sent to extermination
camps.
So, perhaps the most difficult case that raises the issues we all have
to consider is that of a legitimate government that is not tyrannising a
minority, yet is passing laws that conflict with what we consider to be
our moral obligations. In short, what should we do when our moral
obligations conflict with our legal obligations?Editing and Ordering your Material 157HTW20 7/27/01 8:22 AM Page 157