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 …show more content…
Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The United States and many other counties have a tradition of recognizing some acts of disobedience to law as morally justified. Acts of civil disobedience are generally justified on grounds that it would be immoral to obey such laws. Some of the thresholds you would have to cross before civil disobedience is appropriate would be, that you would have to show that the system of property rights for software is not just a bad system, but an unjust system and adhering to those laws compels you to perform immoral acts or support unjust institutions. When an act of infringement is committed, such as copying PS without permission of the copyright or patent holder it is illegal and harms the owner of the PS in the sense that it deprives the owner of his or her legal rights to require payment in exchange for the use of the software. This situation can be equated with denial of a right to vote in way that as a citizen of a country, you have the right to be active in the society and participate in it as it is your legal right. When the right to vote is denied to someone, they are being deprived of their legal right as a citizen to a
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 paradox. Civility and disobedience diametrically oppose one another; civility implies politeness or a regard to the status quo while disobedience is a refusal to submit to the standard. When these words are coupled together, however, they compliment one another. The purpose of Civil Disobedience is to disregard the obligation of observing a law with the intention of highlighting a need for change. Morality, Religion, and Ethics often play into the decision to willingly break a law which creates more depth behind the practical meaning phrase, because those three tend to emphasize a respect for authority and integrity. When people break the law in the name of civility, they often are asking questions like, “What must I
According to St. Augustine “an unjust law is not a law at all”(p186). This belief has been shared by many influential leaders in the past, including Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. They all believed in a non-violent approach to solving their social grievances. In most cases their approach was successful and was noticed by society and brought about a change in the laws. This nonviolent perspective stems straight from Jesus, who says, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”(p192). Others believe that by being disobedient you are under minding the laws and thus creating chaos within society. But, if unjust laws are not brought into light or under minded, then there will be no change in those laws. Martin Luther King felt there is a misconception of time in that the very flow of time cures all ills. On the contrary, time is neutral and it can be used either destructively or constructively(p190).
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.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi
History has spoken. The words of the weak started it. Their actions proved it. Disobeying a law is a crime that the offender should be willing to take the punishment for and let his sacrifice be used as a point to rally around to create a just, moral change. Whenever a law is deemed unjust, there is good reason for breaking it to achieve justice. Civil Disobedience will never be legal and those who employ it should be willing to accept the penalty that comes with breaking a law. It has been shown through historic cases, modern examples, and the core values of a democratic society that show Civil Disobedience not only works, but should be used as a tool to demonstrate the moral objectives that are being sought. Considering some laws are unjust and in contradiction with the core beliefs of society, there are certain times when breaking a law is reasonable, but it is by no means encouraged and should be done at the law breakers own risk.
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”).
Laws are implemented to enforce civil proceedings in society, thereby enabling individuals to operate and function within a morally stable population. But there is a delicate and uncertain balance between doing so and restricting personal freedoms--for though individuals should not be wholly free to conduct themselves as they please (for fear of anarchy), neither should they be confined to a level by which they are unable to direct their life’s course and pursue personal betterment. When citizens feel this to be the case, they have the right to peacefully display their grievances with enacted law for the advocation of positive change in the society. For if a society is truly free, the government
As time goes by there are many things that happen in society that cause a rebel against rulings of the government. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something (Merriam-Webster) . Thoreau begins his essay by arguing that the government is rarely ever useful and that it derives its power from the majority of people because they are more powerful, not because they hold the most legitimate viewpoint. He says the citizens’ first obligation is to go with what they believe is right and to not follow the law dictated by the majority. When a government is unjust, I feel that people should refuse to go with the law and stay away from the government for their well-being. This may include not being a member of the government all together. Thoreau talks about how the United States meets the guidelines for an unconstitutional government He supports himself with the history of slavery and war (SparkNotes).
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
"It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." This type of mentality and belief in a greater justice beyond the law persists throughout Antigone. Antigone’s wrongful actions relate to real life events. These inspiring events include The Salt March, the Boston Tea Party, and Rosa Park’s bus ride.
Civil disobedience has been around for a long time. In Bible times Christians would disobey laws that would go against their beliefs, such as the law that they couldn’t preach. (Acts 4) Christians still disobey laws in many countries that do not let them practice their faith, some end up in jail or killed.
One reason people use civil disobedience is because of the government. When people use this type of disobedience they are trying to get society to accept the opposing view point (Starr, 1998). In this case the opposing view point is usually the protesters point of view. While this disobedience may be considered illegal, it's usually non-violent and the protesters or activist are willing to accept their punishment. The way they see it is that if the do get arrested, they're just one step closer to getting into court to challenge the constitutionality of the law (Suber, 1999). It even states, that in the Bill of Rights, if the government becomes unjust that it is the job of the people to retaliate and fix the government (Starr, 1998). One objection to civil disobedience is that it can't be justified in democracy because if the unjust laws are made by the legislature then they can be fixed by the legislature....
It is important to notice that if civil disobedience was not effective, then it would not be continually used to disobey the law. In "The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy” by Kayla Starr, she explains why we have the right to participate in civil disobedience. “The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it” (Starr 1). There are many examples of how effective this act of defiance could be. During the Boston Tea Party, the citizens of Massachusetts practiced civil disobedience by throwing Britain’s tea into the Boston harbor because they did not want to pay taxes on tea. Now, you can see that the Boston Tea Party played a major role in the United States becoming independent from Britain (Starr 1). Although violating the law has consequences, in this case the reward outweighed the risk. I think that by realizing the power that civil disobedience carries, we can stand up against ...
Civil Disobedience- Civil Disobedience is the refusal to follow a law(s) or a system that is required to be followed or is followed by the general population. In reference to The American Civil Rights Movement, civil disobedience is when African-Americans would protest to laws and treatments that were unfair to them, such as, African-Americans being segregated and treated as second-class citizens. In W...