Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Negatives of civil disobedience
The effect of disobedience
The effect of disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Negatives of civil disobedience
Why partake in civil disobedience? Oscar Wilde, an influential author, has an opinion on utilization of civil disobedience. “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Meaning, if a person wants to change society and its actions, they must rebel against the governing body in order to create effective alterations. Many situations exist where civil disobedience advocates change. In those situations, people have rights for disobedience, but must realize consequences may result from their disobedient actions. To commence, civil disobedience means “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes …show more content…
Thus, creating social progress. Martin Luther King Jr., author of The Letter From Birmingham Jail, defines using civil disobedience appropriately. He describes two different types of laws: Just, laws moral laws in agreement with god; and Unjust laws, laws that disagree with what god wants" (King 5). King argued that if any sign of an unjust law exists, people must rebel against it immediately in order for social progress to result (King 5). Henry Thoreau, author of Civil Disobedience, has an opinion that correlates with King's. “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once” (Thoreau 6) By asking this rhetorical question, Henry Thoreau implied that if a person sees a morally wrong law , he or she must peacefully rebel against for social progress to result. Civil disobedience exists appropriately to the extent that if law appears wrong, people need to take against it with willingness to pay for the consequences. For example, women voting in American History had no existence. According to god's will, he created all people, regardless of gender and race, in the image of god. Therefore, everyone, in god's creation, exists equal and the same. By denying women the right to vote, the law went against God's …show more content…
But, amendment one of the constitution says that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech” (First Amendment-Constitution np)... A one-page comic exists where people are utilizing their abilities of freedom of protest and freedom of speech. However, Uncle Sam states that “We're for Democracy, but not this much democracy” (Wasserman np) Sam's quotation meant that the government wants people to have freedoms to communicate their opinions, however, if the opinions of the people conflict with the governments, the government does not want the people to have a right to say anything. Since government gives people the right to say whatever they want whenever they want, people can communicate their opinions regardless of whether or not those opinions agree with the agenda of the government. Uncle Sam's opinion is wrong because the government gives absolute rights of freedom of speech. It cannot pick and choose what they people can and cannot say. Also, Jordan Peterson, psychology professor of the University of Toronto, utilized civil disobedience to communicate his opinion that he did not agree with the university's transgender pronouns. Peterson felt that the university was
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
Comparing Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail. The two essays, "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau, and "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," by Martin Luther King, Jr., effectively illustrate the authors' opinions of justice. Each author has his main point; Thoreau, in dealing with justice as it relates to government, asks for "not at once no government, but at once a better government. King contends that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
In the great era of foundational philosophers, two stand out, Plato and Thoreau. Each had their own opinion on various topics, especially on civil disobedience. Plato’s life span was approximately 428-348 BC. Plato wrote numerous works throughout his lifetime, however we will be focusing on one, the Crito. Thoreau’s life span was 1817-1862. To help us determine what civil disobedience means to both of these philosophers we will first look at a general definition. According to Merriam-Webster civil disobedience is defined as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.” This definition will act as a springboard to compare and contrast both of their thoughts on the topic. We will determine, according to Plato and Thoreau, when we are called to engage in civil disobedience and when the moral parameters of civil disobedience are pushed too far.
Throughout modern American culture certain laws passed by the majority have been considered unjust by a wise minority. However, with the logical and emotional appeal of hard fought battles, voices have been heard, and the minds of the majority can sometimes be converted to see the truth. Thoreau, after spending a night in jail and seeing the truth hidden behind the propaganda of the majority, became convinced that he could no longer accept his government’s behavior of passing laws that benefit the majority with degrading the minority. It’s quite ironic that by the government imprisoning Thoreau he became freer then ever before. He was able to see how the government turned peaceably inclined men into controllable machines. Thoreau saw how the government dealt with its citizens as only a body, while completely disregarding the sense, intellect, and moral beliefs of its people. In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau stated that “a government ruled by majority in all cases cannot be based on justice.” He further believed that “under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also prison.” This point made by Thoreau can be seen as the truth throughout history. A just man never sits by quietly watching the majority degrade the minority to suit their own immoral purposes. Like Thoreau, another just man who stood out from the quiet minority was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King was, as well, willing to suffer for his views to put an end to racial segregation, and was arrested on numerous occasions for holding strong in his believes and spreading his message throughout the minds of all God’s children. King often cited conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and disobeying unjust ones. In an essay written by King titled “A letter from Birmingham Jail,” King clearly defines the interpretation of the differerence between the two kinds of laws. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is a difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.” To further understand this King quotes from St. Augustine himself who once stated “any law that uplifts human personality is just.
In the past in this country, Thoreau wrote an essay on Civil disobedience saying that people make the law and have a right to disobey unjust laws, to try and get those laws changed.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi. From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an increase in inequality.
By definition, civil disobedience means to actively refuse to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence (Wikipedia 2007). Many of the influential people in history have felt passionately about what they believe. These passions caused them to rebel against a government or authority. Many times they felt so strongly about what they believed and how they were being treated was wrong they became disobedient. They would take physical and verbal abuse for being disobedient but would never retaliate. They believed in what they thought was wrong and tried to change the way they were governed. Albert Einstein once said 'never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.' Albert Einstein's views seem to be reasonable. The claim by Albert Einstein is accurate because people should stand up for what they believe, they should know when they are right and their government is wrong, and they should trust in themselves and their own beliefs.
Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau each write exemplary persuasive essays that depict social injustice and discuss civil disobedience, which is the refusal to comply with the law in order to prove a point. In his “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” King speaks to a specific audience: the African Americans, and discusses why he feels they should bring an end to segregation. Thoreau on the other hand, in “Civil Disobedience,” speaks to a broader, non-addressed audience as he largely expresses his feelings towards what he feels is an unjust government. Both essays however, focus on the mutual topics of morality and justice and use these topics to inform and motivate their audience to, at times, defy the government in order to establish the necessary justice.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
The ideas of King are very similar to the ideas of Thoreau. Moreover, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” shows that King, read the writings of many famous people. From these two reasons, King had probably read “Civil Disobedience” as an important document regarding justice and injustice. Therefore, the positions of the two writers are very close, and they cite conscience as a guide to obeying just laws.
One of the greatest feelings in the world is going against the grain of society and the universal fear to be different than the rest. Whether you are sparked by your own fire, or someone else’s, breaking the status quo to be diverse enhances progress. Oscar Wilde once said, “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man’s original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion.” This quote sparks interest due to disobedience often containing a negative connotation. However, in this quote disobedience is honorable, and to be called disobedient is a compliment. According to Wilde, disobedience is beneficial and without it, social progress could not be made. Without
According to Oscar Wilde, disobedience is a valuable human trait that promotes social progress. Civil disobedience allows for the unification of various groups to fight towards a common goal, often resulting in change. Historically, there has been much evidence supporting Wilde’s claim. Significant examples of disobedience that led to social progress include the Boston Tea Party, the Salt March, and the Civil Rights Movement.
...rom the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement, civil disobedience has been a great tribute to the progression of humanity in striving for equal treatments, only when it does not physically harm others, nor their properties, and also when it does not contravene an already enforced just law. Those who follow civil disobedience properly, find it necessary, like King and his followers, to endure struggle and conflict in order to correct an injustice. Those true civil disobedients find strength of non violence which comes from their willingness to take risks without threatening others, or their properties. They see civil disobedience as an attribute which can help them when law and justice don't go hand in hand. Civil disobedience when used improperly can hurt many people, however when used properly can help gain equal rights and justice for all.
Civil disobedience this is how the internet defines it “The refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. The word explains it all disobeying in a Civil way. Many people have became famous for this for standing up for what they think is right. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, you can say that’s an act of civil disobedience she didn’t think it was right for her to sit in the back of the bus after a long day she disobeyed a law at that time but then we have a group of dumb people that think every law is wrong and its an act of civil disobedience. An example for this civil disobedience would be, people not obeying small laws like speeding, not paying taxes, small laws that to them they seem not right or not hurting anyone when broken. Maybe civil disobed ...