More handpicked essays just for you.
How civil disobedience affects society
How civil disobedience affects society
How civil disobedience affects society
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: How civil disobedience affects society
Throughout history there has been many examples of injustices faced by many groups of people and it grows to become frustrating and intolerant at times. Groups have had to fight to receive their equal rights many either violently or peacefully, but both actions have been viewed as wrong. Therefore, I view that peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society. When society pins you down from the day you are born and doesn't give you a chance to fight back then we begin to see the hierarchy that society has and how many people are at times born into certain ranks or positions in life and that scale does end up shaping people's beliefs as they grow up. With peaceful resistance what is shown is an ability to be strong and brave to …show more content…
So, at times breaking laws is necessary in order to bring upon a new age of equality and freedom that we were promised from the day that our ancestors promised upon creating this new nation. Laws are sometimes created without having any context or any real reason behind their creation and some laws are created to hinder certain groups progress and if we are only relying on one group of people to bring success to our nation then we are stopping our nation from becoming stronger as we are leaving out intelligent, creative and hardworking individuals that don't exactly conform to society's norms. So, peaceful interventions are great ways to motivate others to come out and support a lost cause and when people come together they are strong as one unit and since they will not commit acts of violence to attain their goals they are seen as more respectable and honorable for they way they tackle injustice. When will change arise when many due to fear decide to stay in their shells to avoid confrontation or criticism for what they are fighting
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.
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
Peaceful resistance itself does not affect a free society. A people-group can protest any number of laws: voting rights, taxes, and the legality of murder. A majority of society must determine what is best for itself. If the principles of a resistance aligns with the ideals of the society, the pursuit of betterment positively impacts that
Starting with perspective one I would like to point out the key points. Laws are there to provide peace and avoid chaos, although we should follow the laws if there are things that people may disagree with. Instead of just keeping quiet they should have the right to speak out about it without necessarily breaking the law. Breaking the law wont make it change but discussion of why the law is unjust and why the law was put in place in the first place is bound to make more progress than breaking the law to prove a point. Perspective two, I don't completely agree with the statement that people have a moral obligation to break laws that are unjust, unfair, or immoral. I would more say the entirety of perspective two will get you no where but in trouble and in jail or in legal trouble with the law.
today, perhaps it could be justified. For one, President Donald John Trump’s Immigration Executive Order, which practically bans all foreign immigrants from residing nor entering the nation. America is what it is today because of its diversity. Yet, President Trump and a considerable number of people believe that the country should be of its natives instead of those who seek the privileges of its constitutions and hence potentially violates the Declaration of Independence, which says that all men have the right to seek asylum. Considering how the Declaration of Independence originated the U.S., it is ironic for the nation to limit it. Therefore, civil disobedience is required. As it is apprehended that the matter requires civil disobedience, the negotiation comes in; however, a president could be convinced, but not negotiated with his own nation, and thus this step is nullified. Moving on, the enactment of non-violent direct actions is legally safe from the nation’s military forces, but it could be met with a group of people, potentially possessive of deadly weapons, who support the Immigration Executive Order. As it could be life threatening to some extent, one should be ready to self-defend, but not retaliate to the extent where the other is harmed. Finally, launch coordinated systematic direct actions nationwide for the maximum effect. In doing so, President Trump would eventually have to nullify
There are Henry David Thoreau’s refusal to pay taxes in abhorrence of the U.S.’s institution of slavery, Mahatma Gandhi’s 240 mile walk protesting British rule and taxation over India, John Lennon and Yoko Ono’s ‘bed-ins’ against the Vietnam War, Martin Luther King Jr.’s commitment to the principle that, in his words, “the choice today is no longer between violence and nonviolence. It is either nonviolence or nonexistence.” These examples range from gestures designed to bring awareness and attract popular support to actions directed pointedly against an opposing force. Not all of these protests were entirely successful, though many, such as Gandhi’s, instigated great change. It remains to be seen whether many of today’s protests, be they march, rally, traffic blockage, boycott, or something else entirely will accomplish what they wish. The real question here not whether past, present, or future protests succeed, however, for there is value in taking a stance in victory or failure. Neither is the issue truly whether the beliefs driving that stance are right or wrong- people should have the right to believe and protest what they want. By definition, civil disobedience and ‘peaceful’ protesting do not directly harm others. So in the end, does peaceful protesting positively or negatively impact society? Can it truly create positive
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because if there isn't, how will people hear the voices of the oppressed and mistreated? Peaceful resistance comes a long way in trying to advance the rights and customs of the oppressed today. For example, The Salt March of 1930 was based on the Salt Act of 1882, which excluded the people the India from producing or getting salt, only British officials. Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of this protest. According to an article by time.com, it says that "The protest continued until Gandhi was granted bargaining rights at a negotiation in London. India didn’t see freedom until 1947, but the salt satyagraha (his brand of civil disobedience) established Gandhi as a force to be reckoned with and set a powerful precedent for future nonviolent protestors, including Martin Luther King Jr.(Sarah Begley,2015)" This means the salt march was a start for India's independence. Also, Gandhi's brand of civil disobedience set precedents for future nonviolent protests. Another Example of how peaceful protests
William Faulkner once said, “Never be afraid to raise your voice for honesty and truth and compassion against injustice and lying and greed. If people all over the world...would do this, it would change the earth.” Injustice is an issue that infects society all around us. As a people, we have two choices: stand up or remain quiet. If one chooses to stand, there is a certain etiquette they must follow. Peaceful resistance can be monumental, inspirational, and historical. Unfortunately, there are some who do not know the difference between nonviolent and overly aggressive protest. Peaceful protesting will change society for the better. Human rights activists, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, sought to make a difference
It has been debated though out history whether or not nonviolence “works”. Many societies, and this without question includes the United States, have mostly relied on violent tactics. Many people believe that violence is the only way to stop wars, even though it creates war, and people tend to believe that violence is the one solution to many global and political problems. However, recent literature and research is starting to prove otherwise. Erica Chenoweth, a political scientist, recently published a book, Why Civil Resistance Works in 2011. The research highlights data that shows throughout history, nonviolent tactics are more effective than violent ones in various ways.
Throughout history, during the late 18th century, early and mid 19th century, and even today, many people peacefully resisted laws they felt attacked their rights as a U.S. citizen and as a human. Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, and even the entire city of Baltimore, have all used peaceful protest to rally against an unjust or unfair law or situation they felt was surpressing them from the rights they have been given. In there efforts of their protests, they have positively effected our country today by deminishing segregation, kick-starting a fight against racism for generations and counting, and a drive to find equality between all types of people.
In a list you make in your report specifically identify the status offense laws that are being violated by each of the underage teenage violators.
By the end of Dostoyesky’s Crime and Punishment, the reader is no longer under the illusion of the possible existence of “extraordinary” men. For an open-minded reader, and even perhaps the closed-minded ones too, the book is a journey through Raskolnikov’s proposed theory on crime. It is a theory based on the ideas that had “been printed and read a thousand times”(313) by both Hegel and Nietzsche. Hegel, a German philosopher, influenced Dostoyesky with his utilitarian emphasis on the ends rather than the means whereby a superman existed as one that stood above the ordinary man, but worked for the benefit of all mankind. Nietsche’s more selfish philosophy focused on the rights to power which allowed one to act in a Hegelian manner. In committing his crime, Raskolnikov experienced the ultimate punishment as he realized that his existence was not that of the “extraordinary” man presented in his theory. In chapter five of part three in Crime and Punishment, this theory is outlined by its creator, Raskolnikov. Such an innovative theory would clearly have placed him in the “extraordinary” category, but when he fails to meet its standards, by submitting to the common law through his confession, the theory crumbles right before the reader’s eyes.
... whether it is just or unjust, it does not mean that we have no respect to laws. When disobeying laws, one must have higher purpose respecting the will of the mass. Gandhi and King both pointed out that they never advocated breaking laws on the sly for personal convenience, they attacked unjust laws at their own risk in order to improve the society. Accordingly, while admitting that it is reasonable and necessary to disobey unjust laws undermines the interests of the pubic, we should also recognize the value of laws, deeply respect it and behave strictly as the just laws. Otherwise, a society without the limitation of laws would undoubted come into disorder and chaos.
Firstly in this report, I will be giving the different definitions of rule of law by different philosophers; secondly, I will be applying the rule of law to the English Legal system and thirdly I will be explaining separation of powers with a focus on the impartial judiciary. Finally, I will be using cases to support every detailed point given.
I am a pacifist; I do not believe in nor promote violence. I do, however, promote peaceful protest. The act of civil disobedience, of protesting something that is unjust, unconstitutional is well within our constitutional rights. The right to criticize our government is one that was given, that was fought for by our founding fathers. It is an act that affects our society in a very positive way; peaceful resistance encourages others to criticize a cruel and unfair government. Peaceful protests, strikes, and boycotts have the opportunity to gain the government's attention, to try and stop these so-called "anarchists". When we look back at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we see a hero. We see someone who is intelligent, who is not afraid to argue,