More handpicked essays just for you.
The case against civil disobedience
The case against civil disobedience
Civil disobedience used by protestors in the civil rights movement
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The case against civil disobedience
The ideology of ahimsa(the rejection of any violence) in conjunction with satyagraha(non-violent resistance) will ideally lead to swaraj(complete independence and self rule), according to Mahatma Gandhi. Gandhi and others—such as Martin Luther King Jr.—espoused the values of nonviolent resistance in the face of violent oppression. These sociopolitical equality and justice movements were thrust into the international spotlight, gaining more support for their respective movements. Civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance, as seen throughout history, appeal to masses of people who are oppressed and to those who wish to end the oppression and subjugation of others, and both are incredibly effective at achieving their end goals in the long run. Perhaps the most appealing factor of nonviolent resistance is the …show more content…
Gandhi and Dalton(1996, 40) said that ahimsa was “the largest love, the greatest charity.” He also later says “active Ahimsa necessarily includes truth and fearlessness...A man cannot then practice ahimsa and be a coward at the same time” (Gandhi and Dalton 1996, 40). Essentially, ahimsa requires the greatest courage from all of its practitioners. Gandhi and Dalton(1996,41) aptly describe nonviolence as “the perfect state.” Satyagraha is also incredibly appealing to many people as it is inherently a radically democratic ideal, since everyone can do it and it is in fact good for everyone. Even the average citizen can utilize these ideals, as peaceful protest is almost always looked upon kindly. Nonviolence and peaceful unity are ideals that anyone can strive for and achieve. As long as one follows the ideal of ahimsa, then one cannot lose because “full effort is full victory” (Gandhi and Dalton
...y shocks most of people who hear and see it, encouraging and moving others who also suffer. In instance, Elena screamed at Longoria to show she would not give them any information about resistances and Antonio when Longoria was about to killing her (Tobar 148). Elena sacrificed her life to protect Antonio and her friends who fought against the Guatemalan government without using any violence when she faced Longoria who tried to kill her. She showed it was important not to be daunted by fear and to keep fighting for justice. Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance as a means of seeking peace and gaining independence for the Republic of India from Britain. Justice should be served by means in the name of justice. Nonviolent resistance is a powerful way to fight against the cycle of violence and work towards the realization of a peaceful world.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
The twin cardinal principles of Gandhi's thought are truth and nonviolence. It should be remembered that the English word "truth" is an imperfect translation of the Sanskrit, "satya", and "nonviolence", an even more imperfect translation of "ahimsa". Derived from "sat" - "that which exists" - "satya"contains a dimension of meaning not usually associated by English speakers with the word "truth". There are other variations, too, which we need not go into here. For Gandhi, truth is the relative truth of truthfulness in word and deed, and the absolute truth - the Ultimate Reality. This ultimate truth is God (as God is also Truth) and morality - the moral laws and code - its basis. Ahimsa, far from meaning mere peacefulness or the absence of overt violence, is understood by Gandhi to denote active love - the pole opposite of violence, or "himsa", in every sense. The ultimate station Gandhi assigns nonviolence stems from two main points. First, if according to the Divine Reality all life is one, then all violence committed towards another is violence towards oneself, towards the collective, whole self, and thus "self"-destructive and counter to the universal law of life, which is love. Second, Gandhi believed that ahimsa is the most powerful force in existence. Had himsabeen superior to ahimsa, humankind would long ago have succeeded in destroying itself. The human race certainly could not have progressed as far as it has, even if universal justice remains far off the horizon. From both viewpoints, nonviolence or love is regarded as the highest law of humankind.
The following essay will attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of civil disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on 'Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest?' and Habermas's paper on 'Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State.' An outline of both Dworkin's and Habermas's approach will be given , further discussion will then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. Firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more general context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a 'vital and protected form of political communication in modern constitutional democracies' and further the 'civil disobedience has a legitimate if informal place in the political culture of the community.' Civil disobedience can basically be broken down into two methods, either intentionally violating the law and thus incurring arrest (persuasive), or using the power of the masses to make prosecution too costly to pursue (non persuasive).
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world” this were one of gandhi’s quote. Gandhi was the leader of the Indian independence movement when British was ruling India. Gandhi lead India to independence and lead civil right movements all across the world. Gandhi wanted everyone to be equal and live free of class, wealth, and educational distinctions. There were a lot of different reasons on why Gandhi’s nonviolent movement worked.
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 inequality. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned for a night, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated his intolerance for the American government. Under British rule, India remained oppressed until Mohandas Gandhi, with his doctrine of non-violence lead the country to freedom.
Imagine yourself denied basic civil liberties and rights based on the color of your skin. You are told by the very government that resides over you that segregation is legal if equal but it is not . Tormented by those with blind hatred fueled by flames of racism and you can do nothing to stop it legally. Sacred and wanting some kind of change something must be done to reverse the injustice suffered by the innocent. Options are discussed by those that want change. Hopefully a leader will rise to the occasion and lead their people to the road of redemption and not to the path of total and utter destruction. For the oppressed, three paths come to mind in which they can decide to act. The first is to accept the oppression and the contempt of the oppressors. The second path is to demonstrate nonviolent resistance to prove that the system of government is flawed instead of racial groups. The last path is violence. Violence in its self is an agent of evil and anything gained from it will eventually turn to ash. The methods of each approach have their own ramifications, avenues, and cost. Oppression is a kind of hatred distilled from the lack of understanding and indifference of those that do understand.
...able to showcase the great power that nonviolence could have on the world and how by using methods such as that one would be more successful than if one used violence. As Mahatma Gandhi once said “Non-violence is the greatest force at the disposal of mankind. It is mightier than the mightiest weapon of destruction devised by the ingenuity of man.”
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.
Gandhi developed the idea of satyagraha which centered around nonviolent resistance to opposition and evil. The goal of this march was to protest the taxation on salt production and transport in India by the British government. Gandhi's march sparked a wave of civil disobedience which contributed to the expulsion of the British empire. This march had a long term effect, as it inspired many to take part in a successful, organized civil protest. Furthermore, the protest stimulated further motivation for other disobedience and influenced the thinking of many civil disobedience leaders, such as Martin Luther King during the Civil rights
If people and groups are ignored, that is oftentimes a calculated attempt to downplay on groups statuses in social, economic and political life. As practical experiences made us aware, in societies where differences between groups are very sharp, the mere refusal to acknowledge the existence of other groups seems ineffective. To this, the dominant group makes efforts to dehumanize the contending group. And if this does not achieve the desired results, the dominant group results to physical means- to fight the rival group. But if someone ignores you, laugh at you, fight you, and you win means that you adopted different strategies altogether, different from the tactics adopted by the one who ignores, laugh at you, fight you, which makes you to win.
Gandhi and King both agreed that nonviolence is accomplished by revolutionizing the relationship between adversaries, and that its strength lies in their commitment to justice. However, Gandhi puts emphasis on a need for personal suffering in the practice of nonviolence, a stance that is somewhat less aggressive than
As such one begins to wonder what has happened to non-violence of Gandhian heritage. It seems a dead and irrevocable concept in the turbulent waters of today. If one said its no longer applicable, its not without ground. Let us see how an opposition to Gandhian nonviolence can be mounted.
Gandhi's teachings of non-violent resistance, known as satyagraha, has had a lasting effect and influence on the world today. He has been the role model for many famous, influential people such as American civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. and former South African President Nelson Mandela. His continued influence can still be felt today in many non-violent peace organizations around the world bearing his name or teaching his philosophy.
Mahatma Gandhi believed in a system of non-violence, or ahimsa, that “could change and heal situations of conflict and human nature itself” (xxxi). He believed that there was a need for “radical transformations in human lives, relationships, and organizations… and the interconnectedness of these” (xxvi). Gandhi “recognized the need to create a social environment in which this sort of disciplined personal life and consequent transformed personal relationships could flourish,” (xxvii) which sparked the idea of ashram communities where people shared a vision of “authentic human life and the disciplines which enabled it” (xxvii). Furthermore, Gandhi pushed for the civil disobedience of “people unwilling to conform to the laws of the legislature”