Civil disobedience is often intended to point out injustices in the law, and undermine the law’s effectiveness. Civil disobedience differs from revolution in that you are being nonviolent, conscientious, and willing to accept legal consequences of their action. Civil disobedience is breaking of a law or laws, to bring attention to the public of its injustice and their motive is to force a change, to make the law just. Civil disobedience is done selflessly, not due to self-interest, but with the community’s best interest at heart. Civil disobedience is only an act against unjust laws, or laws that are thought to be unjust, and thus should be made just.
But there are problems with this act; it allows the government to decide when to bring it into action and take it out of action. By doing this it gives the go... ... middle of paper ... ...risis. Illiberalism also suggest that because it supports the idea of straying away from liberal ideas. It supports the absence of rights and freedoms, private property and rule of law, as would the source indirectly. The source agrees with government intervention in crisis but allowing the government to intercede completely would allows them to surpass laws (taking away rights and freedoms), inevitably breaking rule of law.
...cience?? He believed that conscience should tell a person what to do not just a majority vote. To follow a government blindly ruins people they should only trust what they believe is right. 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.
Should he rebel against this law? Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. answered yes to this question and believed that one should speak out against an injustice. They both believed that government had many flaws. Even though they shared many beliefs in many of the same subjects concerning Civil Disobedience, they had many different views on how the government should work and how the citizen should be treated by society. Both Martin Luther King Jr. and Thoreau believed that one should act out against an unjust law by means of peaceful protest.
When should civil disobedience be condoned? Should it be condoned? Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey government laws, in an effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government won't take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedients to bring awareness and fix the unjust law.
It is a form of protest intended to draw attention to a wrong or injustice which the protesters believe is serious to morally justify violation of the law and is usually non-violent. The goals of civil disobedience are to publicize an unjust law or a just cause and to appeal to the conscience of the public so as to end injustice which flows from obedience to unjust law (“Civil Disobedience, Environmental Protest and the Rule of Law”). With rules, laws, commands, demands by the authority, it make sure that everyone has the the freedom and right. However, no law can satisfy everyone because of the system and the majority rule. With civil disobedience, individuals can express their opinion on how the law should be.
He also argues in this chapter that society has the right to punish individuals who harm other members in society. On Liberty, chapter four by J.S. Mill argues that there has to be a division between an individuals rights and the society’s ability to punish, Mill also argues that his “harm principle” would hold the individuals accountable for their actions, which would prevent harm to society, however there were also flaws in Mill’s argument and exceptions need to be added to his theory.
Acts of civil disobedience are often done in public and in a nonviolent way in order to prove that the disobeyers’ only goal is to bring about change to an unjust law rather than creating a chaotic and violent protest. Also those that are participating in acts of civil disobedience should expect and accept the probability of being arrested and punished for committing a crime (Arthur & Shaw, p.63). In a sense going against a specific government or power is going against the law that was put in place and therefore they can be prosecuted. Even though the
The inherent right of a citizen to be civil is civil disobedience as this implies a great amount of individual discipline and sacrifice. To be civil means to be passive in form of protest, where refusal to obey the law is needed when the law goes against humanity and basic civil rights and freedoms. Civil disobedience in certain cases is a very effective tool for rejecting the unjust demands, laws and commands of a coercive power, and in many cases a strong method of peaceful protest. This concept is crucial when the people en mass form unity against their oppressors. Such resistance is usually for the greater good of society as it represents the discontent of a general population.
They also want people to think for themselves and not comply to laws that they do not agree are just. We should ultimately challenge our government to make it work for us and not against us. Dr King said, “One has not only a legal, but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” So if the majority is working against what you believe is morally right take a stance against the majority, because “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice