More handpicked essays just for you.
The pros of civil disobedience in a democracy
Cons of civil disobedience
Arguments against civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
Morality is the principles and standards set by society for evaluating between right and wrong. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” (A Natural Law Approach 284). Unreasonable laws created by a democratic legislature can very e...
... middle of paper ...
...ues above the overall well-being of the state, the state would cease to exist and its benefits could not be enjoyed by anyone.
If the citizens in a society do not obey the law, anarchy will ensue. Anarchy is a lack of government, a state of total political disorder and lawlessness due to the absence or incapability of a supreme power. Military rule in Indonesia and authoritarian rule in Singapore and Malaysia have led to a persuaded efficiency that was later torn apart by stress. The system broke down in social chaos, riots, and civil disorder that did not lead to fairnesss or justice. The same fate is probable for the United States, if every individual tossed aside the importance of the law. A law is an important system of rules established to maintain order and function of the state. Without the effectiveness of laws, society as we know it would crumble.
When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or
According to the American heritage dictionary “Civil Disobedience” is 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. In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau stated “That government is best which governs least, and I would like to see it acted up more rapidly and systematically” (pg227). Thoreau did not believe that the government should have the final say on everything. The citizens of this country should have rights in the decision making process and the opportunity to think for themselves also. Thoreau says that government does not, in fact, achieve that with which we credit it: it does not keep the country free, settle the West, or educate. Rather, these achievements come from the character of the American people, and they would have been even more successful in these endeavors had government been even less involved.
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
Civil disobedience is a refusal to follow certain rules and is usually shown through a peaceful form of protest. The Moratorium March was somewhat a civil disobedience event because although it started as a peaceful anti- war movement, violence was unavoidable. The vast majority of demonstrators were peaceful; however, a conflict broke out at the Justice Department when demonstrator’s started throwing rocks and bottles, which the police responded to with tear gas canisters (Leen). According to Henry David Thoreau’s statement in his essay “Civil Disobedience,” “If the machine of government…is of such a nature that it requires yo...
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
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.
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.
In the video, John Green talks about several examples of Civil Disobedience. The movement that impressed me the most was the nonviolent protest against the Nazis during World War II called the Rosenstrasse protest. German Gestapo arrested Jewish men whose wives were not Jewish. They were taken to a building as the ladies protested outside on the street. The Gestapo threatened them with their guns, but the wives persisted for a week. Eventually, the men were released and returned to their families. This example of Civil Disobedience intrigued me due to the fact that it was the only protest against the German Nazis to achieved success. In the video, when Green told his viewers that this was the only protest that successfully resisted the
Not only does peaceful resistance positively affect a free society, it is the bedrock for its survival. When the Founding Fathers congregated to ratify the Bill of Rights, they considered those ten as unalienable because they were representative of the American people’s values. As questions about which rights are guaranteed constantly circulate, civil disobedience can be a critical reminder to lawmakers about which rights the public refuse to forfeit. In a country of such rich diversity, unanimous agreement is a profound rarity. Unrepresented citizens cannot always rely on their peers to represent the same values, and as the late Howard Zinn once stated: “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from the law; it is essential to it.” Civil disobedience grants a voice to the otherwise voiceless. Ideological minorities can voice their discontent by refusing to conform to policies that breach their moral compasses. Without civil disobedience, those unfavored ideologies would struggle to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
Relating back to my question of “Imagine if the world didn’t have a government”. Well it was like that at point of time during history, which probably makes sense to why there were numerous of documented wars. Complete chaos and disorder happening. Some will say governments serve as a purpose to bring order to society , but on the other hand if the government doesn’t meet the needs of the people they will try and change the rules. Even worse ! If the government feels like they have complete control over the people, the people will take authority to
From the ancient kings of Greece to our modern democracy, order has consistently been maintained by means of laws. To incentivize compliance and to reduce violence within a society, these laws are enforced through penalties according to the crimes committed. However, an individual is not only tasked to abide by these laws but also to preserve justice and condemn unjust laws that contradict the laws of a higher power. To address this conflict between moral and government-made laws, we are compelled to civil disobedience in the case of unjust laws.
“Civil disobedience is an act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences”, as quoted from the prompt. The real question being, does this negatively or positively impact a free society? It does have a positive affect because people from a free society are using their right to free speech, their getting attention from people in power, and it does not hurt the environment or bystanders not in the conflict; but actually looks to improve. There’s a hidden beauty to civil disobedience because seeing hundreds and hundreds of men and women of all ages all gathering together to fight for the same side just so they can see and change and in hopes of making the future better. An article from “The
Bulldozers ahead, desecrating sacred ground, people clamoring over offenses in desperation to stop the destruction of culture, security manhandling all those who dare oppose the construction, “And then the dogs came”(Manning). The world is composed of a collection of different countries, continents, and nations all made up by people, in some instances the nations that reside above its people enforce an injustice into its system, that is when the people’s tool of civil disobedience must be utilized. The impromptu occupation of sacred land facing imminent demolishment by the Meskwaki and Sioux tribes is a demonstration of how civil disobedience can be successful in the short term but may not carry enough momentum to cause wide scale change.