In order to make well-informed, intelligent judgments on the issue of civil disobedience, we must study our nation’s past. Woodrow Wilson once said, “A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about.” Our country was formed because our founding fathers engaged in acts of civil disobedience. However, their civil disobedience was not radical; it was employed after much careful consideration and fervent attempts at reconciliation. We must evaluate carefully whether or not is it is ever appropriate to engage in civil disobedience and what impact it will have on our society. There …show more content…
As fallible people, members of a democracy can make imperfect laws. Prohibition is an excellent example of this; when our legislators outlawed the consumption of alcoholic beverages, they infringed upon the rights of the American people and later rectified this by passing the twenty-first amendment. There are negative examples of civil disobedience, such as the violent protests which resulted after the recent presidential election. Hundreds of protestors flooded the streets, smashing windows, torching limousines and creating chaos. Violence is never the answer to solve our nation’s problems. Nevertheless, civil disobedience which is carried out in the pattern that King laid out, can positively impact free societies. Many minority groups have gained rights through acts of nonviolent civil disobedience that they never would have achieved through passive acts of legislation. Rosa Parks’ blatant act of civil disobedience in defying a white man who tried to force her to give up her seat was not at all violent, yet it was incredibly effective, leading to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act was a major step in ridding our nation of the appalling discrimination it had been advocating for
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
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).
Depending on the situation, civil disobedience can either negatively impact or positively impact a free society. For example, the Boston Tea Party, which occurred in 1773, was a form of civil disobedience. The Boston Tea Party was a protest against having to pay taxes. A group of just over 100 people participated in this act in Boston, gathering together on ships, and protesting by simply throwing tea overboard. Hence the name, "Boston Tea Party." This act of civil obedience didn't necessarily disturb anyone's peace, but it did start a revolution, and it did cause thousands of dollars in damage, in their currency, at the time. According to the online article, "Boston Tea Party Facts," the damage that was done would be worth around $1,700,000 in today's United States currency. In that case, the Boston Tea Party in fact would have negatively impacted the "free society." Only due to the fact that it caused quite a bit of debt in their time.
When nonviolent civil disobedience occurs, the participating citizens are attempting to bring about positive change to the system--change which has not (and may not have) been brought about by words alone. Given that this constitutional republic is intended to be representative of its citizens in accordance with its fundamental laws, citizens are undoubtedly justified in striving for representation for the public will. This is put succinctly by David Thoreau in the poem Civil Disobedience: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” The government should enact the will of its people, and where people see a law as being unjust this disposition is voided. A purportedly representative governing body should be brought to consider the will of its people in earnest, and peaceful demonstration is the next step where words alone
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral 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.
I believe that civil disobedience is justified as a method of trying to change the law. I think that civil disobedience is an expression of one's viewpoints. If someone is willing to break a law for what they believe in, more power to them! Civil disobedience is defined as, "the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition" (Webster's Dictionary). This refusal usually takes the form of passive resistance. Its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. Civil disobedience has been a major tactic and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa and India, in the civil rights movement of U.S. blacks, and of labor and anti-war movements in many countries. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider it unjust and hope to call attention to it. In his essay, "Civil Disobedience," American author Henry David Thoreau set forth the basic tenets of civil disobedience for the first time. The independence of India in the 1930's was largely a result of the nonviolent resistance by Mohandas Gandhi to the British colonial laws. In the United States, the nonmilitant efforts of Martin Luther King, Jr., helped bring about civil rights legislation. There are numerous examples that illustrate how civil disobedience is justified.
The Act of Civil Disobedience in the eyes of the beholder is righteous and should be tolerated by many different governments all over the world, unfortunately when you act against the government there will be consequences for your actions even though you are composed and not dangerous to anyone. People may also say this disobedience is negative because humans can go into a primitive mode that makes them lose control and the same can go with the rest of the group. Cases of civil disobedience have grown to new height and will not stop until the people have their say in the matter at hand. Leaders in the past like Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr have had a positive impact in this world and allowed many men and women to stand up for what's right in today's society.
In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau says, “I heartily accept the motto, ‘The government is best which governs least.’” He then clarifies his true belief that is “The government is best which governs not at all” Thoreau considers civil disobedience to be a moral and social duty of American citizens. He defines civil disobedience as an act of willful resistance, achieved by disobeying laws he considered to be hypocritical. Civil disobedience has continued into today’s world, and I believe that as long as it is civil then it is an appropriate response to perceived injustice.
...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 is an act of opposing a law one might consider unfair so it’s peacefully disobeyed while accepting the consequences. If there is a way to protest in a way without causing any violent disturbance to the society then why do people avoid using it? Is it because it takes a long time to get the point across or is it because the government won’t care? Great figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Mohandas Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela have used this tactic and impacted the society greatly. They brought justice and equality for the people that were treated unethically even though it required time. Their point got across effectively without any use violence and has impacted the society for the greater good. Therefore, peaceful resistance to laws can positively impact a free society by allowing it to change the errors of the law, however others might say otherwise.
Opposition to civil disobedience is doing just that: refusing to acknowledge the problems of others because they are not personally applicable. Resistance of unjust laws by varying people groups is a crucial part of democracy, and it accomplishes two key things: drawing public attention and creating positive environments for those who support the movement.
Civil disobedience has a history of being a positive part of the American pursuit of liberty and freedom. In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, a law
One of the most substantial positive consequences of civil disobedience is that it allows its enactors to display their dedication responsibly. Many think