Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience is in the nature of all human beings. While some may not show it all, the will to enact civil disobedience kindles when the oppressed have been oppressed for too long. In the circumstance of religious oppression, it is justified to enact civil disobedience for the sake of freedom. Civil disobedience, in a general sense, is when a group of people come together to protest inequality or political decisions of a higher authority. Civil disobedience has been seen throughout the world ever since a governmental type system was devised. The reasons why people enact civil disobedience are extensive but John Locke’s explains The Second Treatise of Government, why civil disobedience even exists and what stimulates …show more content…
“But if a long train abuse, prevarications, and artifices, all tending the same way, make the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then rouse themselves and endeavor to put the rule into such …show more content…
Although, there is major difference to be made known. According to the law of the triumvirate it was just to imprison Bishop Daryl and Pope Byron so therefore it was legally just but on the contrary, it is morally wrong to imprison them. These two concepts can sometimes conflict each other but when looking at this situation in depth shows that there is no conflict. The law that banned religion was “not rooted in eternal and natural law” according to Saint Thomas Aquinas. Therefore, it wasn’t a law to from the start of it because it is unjust. It is understandable that religion at first wasn’t a part of the society, but the problem comes in when the government decides to ban any potential religion from reaching the people. Regardless of religion, human beings have an inborn desire to seek something that is greater than them. To deprive a human being of that is unjust on its face and unjust on its application. The triumvirate was more concerned with establishing order than establishing justice. Dr. King said that “people must understand that law and order for the purpose of establishing justice…” Now that it is established that the law itself was flawed, Bishop Daryl and Pope Byron have both a moral and legal reason to preach to the people in the public streets. The triumvirate has no basis for their punishment
Civil disobedience is a main focus of discussion in chapter six of James Rachels’ The Elements of Moral Philosophy; this can be defined as a usually peaceful, but powerful act of protest against a law or demand from the government. Normally when one would non-violently refuse to obey a certain law, they would see that the law was unjust to them.
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”.
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”).
Throughout history, there are always laws and rules; however, these rules wouldn’t evolve and progress in a government if it weren’t for civil disobedience. Throughout the course of history, especially in democracies, civil disobedience has been used to change unright laws, and it gives people the freedom to stand for what they believe in. There are countless examples of people who have protested and changed the world. In a way, it also lets people stay true to what they believe is right, whether it be for religious reasons or just because of their ethics. Civil disobedience is, and always has been, a part of society; it is not only a part of government, but it is also necessary in a democracy where people have freedom of speech and other similar rights.
The definition of civil disobedience is a form of protest in which protesters deliberately violate the law (Suber, 1999). Civil disobedience can be shown in many different ways and is also used for many different reasons. Civil disobedience can be caused by democracy, used for murder excuses, government hacking, deportation and equal rights. Some say there is no way to justify civil disobedience while others think it is necessary in some cases. People choose civil disobedience because they feel it's the best way to get the attention they need for their cause. These people see it as the practical way to go about fighting for their cause without actually using violence. While some people who act upon civil disobedience do turn to violence, that doesn't mean that want to, they just think it's their only option.
Martin Luther King stated “Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.” Conscience is the main sense of human being that helps to distinguish what is wrong and what is right. Thus, conscience has to be a main driving force when people encounter unjust laws of government. One of the philosophers who favored this idea was Henry David Thoreau. Specifically, he proposed a theory that a personal conscience is the main sense, which is responsible for basic rudiments of social principles and argued that if complying the law forces to support and be a part of unjust affairs of the government then people should make their own decisions founded on morality. Therefore a person should try to follow conscience in order to act in accordance with their moral principles. During Thoreau’s time, he mentioned two main unjust aspects, such as the slavery and Mexican war that cause him to reach the conclusion that individual conscience is crucial and has major priority than current laws. As proof of his idea, Thoreau explained that person should act from own conscience instead of laws in order to avoid sharing responsibility for the government unjust actions. Also, Thoreau claimed that the individual conscience is a base of social morality and principles, which helps to develop to better society. According to Thoreau’s society should show their civil disobedience for any unjust of government.
Civil disobedience to laws is a method of protest that has always been prevalent in free societies and has the power to change the viewpoints of many and bring about change. Peaceful resistance to laws, and whether or not it is a positive or negative method to change, is not black and white or easily determined to be right or wrong. Instead, there are many complications and factors that go into determining the true motives of these movements. However, most of the time, civil disobedience positively impacts societies as it brings issues to the forefront of the media and thusly to the public and aids in battling inequality and fighting for justice.
Civil disobedience is a deliberate, peaceful action that is taken with the greater good of the society in mind. It is not breaking the law in the traditional sense, in which greed, lust, or violence often plays a motivating role. Civil disobedience, on the other hand, is motivated by one’s moral compass, by one’s innate human compassion. While it is true that “no society whether free or tyrannical can give its citizens the ‘right’ to break the law” (Morris I. Leibman, 1964), this governmental right is not necessary because it is a right that exceeds the power of government itself; it is the right of humanity. People’s resistance to certain laws on the grounds of injustice is what keeps organized society human, free. They disobey with dignity, “accepting the legal consequences without any attempt to evade them” (Tom Mullen, 2016), because they know their specific actions are tiny matters compared to what they represent. While mindless or destructive disobedience has the potential to negatively impact a free society, civil disobedience is what saves
The argument regarding civil disobedience has been a hotly contested subject ever since the creation of a democratic form of government. The idea that a person can disobey a law and accept the consequences because it violates their moral code has intrigued philosophers and lawmakers for several years. However, I would assert that civil disobedience is beneficial, even essential, for the advancement of free society.
With the world that we live in, civil disobedience is an essential method for solving the conflict that is bound to arise. As man lives beside man, dissent is inevitable and clashing viewpoints can very easily become wild dispute. Additionally, these differences may morph or come into being as time passes, and when this happens it is usually necessary for the government to somehow intervene to elude potential disaster. Formulating these laws, though, is not usually a simple process and there are always complications that must be worked out before a solution can be settled upon. For this reason, civil disobedience is essential to society as it gives the possibility for obstacles to be worked out without any other major conflict—no bloodshed or loss of lives is necessary. For example, the 1960s Civil Rights
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.
The term “civil disobedience” is also known as non-cooperation, resistance, or protest. These words are used in powerful actions and speeches that have a huge impact on our free society. They allow at an individual or group level to express ourselves and what we believe to be right or just. Over the last three decades here in the United States there seems to be trend of increasing unrest within the country. Groups such as the Occupation Movement, Oil Pipeline protests and Tea Party have started small. Undercurrents within a society always seem to be in flux and moving back and forth. The Tea Party though is a great example of something starting small and gaining traction that ultimately moved the nation to a more conservative outlook. The other interesting thing is that in prior decades much of civil disobedience happened locally with mass marches. The Internet age allows for a much more passive approach to civil
In discussions about social progress, controversial issues have been brought up that question the morality of disobedience in achieving a desired effect. Although many people argue that disobedience promotes anarchical behavior in that the basic rules set by society are being disregarded, I believe that civil disobedience has helped achieve social progress throughout history in revolutions like the Civil Rights movement that was able to mold the United States into the place it is today. Although there is a fine line between disobedience and insubordination that is crossed with the disregard of moral values, it has been proven that there is a tolerable extent of disobedience that is necessary when aspiring to progress a society.
Disobedience is a message, not just an act of incompliency. It’s a message of what the people want. Ignoring our developing morals and thoughts is only ignoring a quality of life that we strive for. We can’t live under rules that nobody wants to follow. For instance, Rosa Parks had refused to give up her bus seat to a white passenger. She initiated civil rights movements. We recognize Rosa Parks as a hero because she gave everyone the courage to stand up for what they believe in. Societies have to adapt to the people. If the people wanted equality then the world is forced into equality. Disobedience and rebellion makes it clear when that time comes. Disobedience is critical to communicate a need for change. Questioning and having faith in our
Civil disobedience in a democratic society is morally justified. Which means breaking the laws of the nation to be able to persuade the public. Civil disobedience has been around since the biblical times. Democracy is a form of government that is by the people and for the people. Although Democracy is a system of government that the people elect government officials to speak and make decisions for the people.