Okay, I wrote my first philosophy paper tell me what you think about it. The topic of the paper is Unjust Laws are not Laws at All. this segment is arguing for Unjust Laws not being laws, as arguing for them being laws is boring, generic, and easy, so I won't paste it here.

Basically you can help me by finding the weak points so I can fix them.

Unjust laws are not laws at all. Unjust laws having the same consequences as laws do not make them laws. If the people of a state perceive unjust laws to be laws, either because they have been enshrouded in a fog of legitimacy or because of a state of fear, still are not laws. Law is the governmental process of reaching a common level of justice applicable to everyone. Unjust laws, being not applicable to everyone, are then obviously not laws. In order for a law to be legitimate it must be public, explicit, and uniformly enforced. If any law is not legitimate, then it is not a law at all. Laws must be legitimate for an expectation of obedience. An unjust law, being an illegitimate law, then has no expectation of obedience. Unjust laws have no expectation of obedience, because they are not laws at all. Can a law with no expectation of obedience really be called a law? Since an unjust law cannot be expected to be obeyed then it should not be obeyed. Any obedience to an unjust law is obedience to the consequences of breaking the law, not to the law itself. Just laws on the other hand have an expectation of obedience; to break them is outside of societal normality, which is a consequence in itself, that being making oneself a social outcast. For example, Jim Crowe Laws could not be expected to be obeyed, as they were outside of natural human societal normality. Traffic laws, being an extension of laws against murder, can be expected to be obeyed, as murder is outside of natural human societal normality. In nations as well, we refer to just systems, as real governments while unjust systems are not real governments. A law that is unjust cannot be a real law, the fact that a law, which is unjust, can be passed through a system attempting systematize justice only shows that system to be unjust and no longer a system of law. Unjust laws are also conflict with the rule of law, that being if a nation passes unjust laws then they are no longer a nation ruled by laws, they are a nation ruled by tyrants. Just laws can be neither created nor destroyed. They have existed for an unknown amount of time, and will continue to exist as long as there are beings with the capacity to know law. Unjust laws, which are never laws, can be created and destroyed at the whim of whoever is writing the law. An example would be, if I created an ideal society, based upon Just laws, the people would know the law to be merely the law, but would inherently know them to be right laws, because the laws are not in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. They are applicable to everyone, are known, in short they are legitimate. If I created a society, based upon Unjust laws, the people would know the “laws” to be wrong in some way, because the laws are in conflict with their own pursuit of happiness. It is important to remember that one’s pursuit of happiness cannot come at the expense of another’s. In this case, the law would not be considered justice. If there is no justice in a law, then it is not a law in the first place, as a law’s purpose is to bring equal justice to all. Any nation founded on unjust laws will collapse, being there is no rule of law, there is no expectation of obedience to law, and it would result in anarchy. A nation founded on just laws will not collapse, unless it begins to fall into a system of injustice. Unjust laws appear to exist as laws but appearance and presence alone are not enough to make them laws. It is even too far to say unjust laws cannot be considered laws; they are not laws at all. They are not within the realm of law at all, because the realm of law is the realm of justice, anything outside of this realm appearing to exist is injustice, and is not law. All people perceive this realm as something different. The people of nations give power to a select few in the hope that those few can better comprehend this realm and make this more common comprehension available and applicable to all. If the few who have been given power by the people, are instead ignoring the purpose the people have chosen them for, and are instead, passing injustice off as justice then they are no longer making law. They will lose their legitimacy, the people will challenge them, and the people will not follow their laws, as they are not laws at all, and carry no expectation of obedience.
However, if one does not follow Unjust laws, which are already in existence because their acceptance is widespread, one will face consequences. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all does not mean it is not ‘real.’ Generally people will perceive any law, even if Unjust, if an official law, to be a law. This is what gives the Unjust law the power of real laws. To say an Unjust law is not a law at all is not to say it does not wield the same power as Just laws. It is not saying the unjust law does not have power that can force one to follow it; it is saying the unjust law does not have legal, legitimate force behind it. If and unjust law is not a law but it is real in a sense and it is consequential just without the force of a just law, what kind of existence are we imputing to it? What makes it “stand-out” in the same way as the just laws do for people who do not challenge it? (V. Beaver). People perceive and acknowledge many things because of their consequences, though the appearance, which they are perceiving and acknowledging, may not be true or real. Many times, things that really exist are not acknowledged (Fanon/V. Beaver). People acknowledge unjust laws as laws because of their appearance as laws, and the consequences that give them force. It is important to realize, though people usually do not, that just laws, that is real laws, do not require the appearance of a law to be acknowledged as a law. Since they are laws, and the others are not. They do not require appearance, or consequences. Consequences for breaking laws (just laws) are already known, casting out of human society. Consequences for breaking unjust laws are only known for as long as they exist, or seem to.

Thanks please give me some feedbacks...

Also, in a majority based rule, the laws are based on the whim and benefits of the people. If the people do not like the law, bye bye. Also, many laws are shrouded in contravery, like that of same sex marriage. What influences people usually tend to be their religion and/or culture.

Very nice essay though. For once, i didn't have to say the following:
Must .. Continue ... To ... Sift ... Through ... Random ... Data. Anime break!

Pink sakura will come along and yell at you for this is not the homework corner. Then this thread will be closed. Just thought that I'd give you a heads up. And a warning that if I had the power, I'd close it myself.

All laws are laws wheither they make sense or not. The basis of all modern law pretty much everywhere is based off of the code of hammurabi. Most other laws that do not touch those basic rules are pretty much frivolous and probably not necessary to police normal people. But governments (and by extension lawyers) do not obtain power over the people when they are honest. As is said by Ayn Rand: when you can not find dishonest men, you make them. When everyone infringes on various "laws" the government obtains power over you. As such it is always within the governments interest to hold on to that power whether the law is relevant or not. All laws are simply laws, not justice itself. Justice is decided and dispensed by people themselves, laws are the guidelines by which some select few may set, however whenever you draw a line in human nature that line is arbitrary and justice may or may not be served. Both law and justice are arbitrary terms from the eye of the beholder. If the government wants power over you then why not draw the line where you step over it so you are always in peril of punishment?

I mostly agree with Fluxbox... Yet, I believe that although both concepts may change according to ones point of view, the essence is mostly the same... So, through this essence of law and justice is the system based... I mean, there is a minimum degree of stability in the concepts…
Although laws may even be a toll for injustice, that really depends on how you interpret them, that’s why you have to consider things as principles, other laws, costumes and common sense when you are figuring the meaning of a law…
The state makes them to be absolute positive imposition of power, but humanity has been aware of the problems of legal positivism since world war 2… That’s why government’s don’t completely achieve their goal…
And please, don't confuse democracy and majority's dictatorship...

Sarsshadow

Basically you can help me by finding the weak points so I can fix them.

Learn to paragraph. Theres what, two paragraphs in there at the moment? Thats just a wall of text which I can't even bring myself to read at the moment. Also it would help if you said what level you're talking about here so we can give constructive criticism.

But like pinkangelkitty says, this probably will get locked soon anyway

Is this assignment for high school or university?

It seems very bland at the moment.
Don't be repetitive.
Use more references.

1. You should give scenarios or anecdotes to support your idea and make a good opening.
2. Explain the purpose of law in society
3. Explain what an unjust law is: discriminatory? unconstitutional? stupid?
4. If a law is unjust, why is it there in the first place?
5. Explain the recourse for challenging unjust laws. This would make a good ending.

I go with eikenhein, and you should rephrase it so it will go well. If you have a Philosophy prof which asks enough 10 pages of essay with no spaces... i learned my lesson... anyway, Pink might punish you because this isn't homework corner

All I can say is..
Don't start with the conclusion.. and sstructure it more..

My philosaphy is if you can fall on your feet then sure as hell enough you can get back on them.

I believe its a good paper and has a lot of great ideas. However sometimes you do not back up a statement with a valid evidence or argument. Also its unstructured. The paper's main fault is that it lack an introduction and the fact that you do not also have a conclusion. The main thing to remember is to only introduce your argument in the introduction and then structure your arguments in paragraphs, and for the conclusion wrap it up but do not introduce new arguments or ideas and then it should be fine. Its a good paper but I would simply structure it better and it will be fine.

If you have a copy of Reader's Digest, they usually have a section on outrageous laws. You can grab a story from that and work it into your paper.

Nice paper but it has been mentioned the lack of proper structure/paragraphs makes it really difficult to read, my eyes nearly fell out of my head trying to keep the line structures in place.

You need to conclude the paper with one final statement/argument or so that has been the heart of the piece.

I'm not going to tell you what to change in your paper though with concepts because I do not have sufficient knowledge of laws and law structures.

B.t.w is this University or school level?
If school then WOW is all I can utter!

I have my Masters degree in Legal Philosophy and if you still need help with that paper (I'm guessing it's a university course), pm me because there are some real serious difficulties with your paper. Then again, if it's for a first year philosophy course, your professor will probably be forgiving and let some problems slide.

I highly suggest the reference of your university library internet services for references and the best thing is just to go the prof and ask for guidance, in this case, until you learn how to use english and paragraphing, do not expect there to be any decent help from us.