More handpicked essays just for you.
Good instances of civil disobedience
Good instances of civil disobedience
Good instances of civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
January 21, 2017. A middle-aged, white man wears a black lives matter shirt. He holds a sign that reads, "Privilege is when you think something is not a problem because it’s not a problem to you." 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. It’s no secret that the majority rules. Thoreau even recognized that the majority isn’t always the majority because it’s right or fair, but rather because it has the most power. Due to the development …show more content…
The Klu Klux Klan, Black Lives Matter, and radical Islamic terrorists are groups that chose violence; undoubtedly, lynchings, destroying public buildings, and beheadings can easily catch the eye of the public. But it’s easy to sweep “bad news” under the rug in a large group each day and wish it away with a thought of, “How horrible, so sad, can’t believe this is what the world has come to.” But people of all sorts still regard Martin Luther King, Jr’s “I Have a Dream” speech and marches on Selma and Washington to be some of the most powerful events of all time. Why? Because they were positive. There was no violence on the part of the protesters. The ultimate goal is to gain awareness, to gain the majority power, and the best way to do this is through news media– the one source that can so easily rule public opinion. And, yes, riots from the Black Lives Matter movement were covered, ISIS beheadings were covered, but there’s no lasting impact. But it’s easy to tell that a movement has done its job when the president of the United States has to fight for media attention. The women’s marches held around the world–and in most major U.S. cities– did just that. Donald Trump took a weekend vacation after his inauguration, but he called a press conference the same day as the march to address issues such as the turnout of the inauguration event. Many reporters on Fox News said that this was done mainly so people would remember the weekend as the day after Donald Trump was inaugurated rather than the day of the women’s march. It’s quite clear, however, what gained the attention of the world that
When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
Black Lives Matter. Women’s Marches. In today’s society, we need not look far to see various examples of civil disobedience. Yet, there is still much opposition on the people’s right to speak up - to fight for their rights. Why is this so, when our country seems to have evolved into what it is today, precisely because of it? It is my firm belief that while the United States of America remains a free society - a democracy run by the people - the protesting of unjust laws and traditions will always have a uniquely positive impact in the country.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to follow or demand laws or rules. Taking a stand on issues of justice in society may be important or redundant to many individuals. In my case, taking a stand on issues of justice is important. Individuals take a stand on justice so they can change issues, speak for people who can’t speak for themselves, and fight for what they believe in.
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
He justified this by arguing that majority rules not because they are right but because they are physically the strongest (para. 4). I think he makes a good point here because this situation is really prevalent anywhere in the world. Sometimes the majority only represents the physical strength and not the application of conscience. Most of the established government systems, and even simple voting procedures, follow the majority-wins scheme. This results to the minority to compromise and conform with whatever the majority has decided. I almost thought that that was the end of Thoreau’s argument about majority-minority division of the society but in paragraph 22, he finally set a hope that the minority can become powerful and this notion can change the game. “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight” (para. 22). This line is inspiring because he motivates the minority to actually stand up for what they believe is right. Being someone who usually conforms to what has been decided, even when it is against my will, I felt motivated to be more outspoken about what I think is
No one possesses the same morals or beliefs. Morality does not have a black and white answer because no one is exactly alike. Everyone has their own opinion and right to voice that opinion, and there are numerous ways of doing so. As a citizen with my own beliefs, I believe I have the right to violate laws if I feel morally obligated to. The amount of progress that America has made in such a short amount of time is astonishing. In some ways it seems as if the only way to make any headway is to speak up. If I was morally opposed to a policy or law I would go against it due to its effectiveness, individualism, and past history of the world that has made immense progress.
Likewise, violent protests raise awareness in a negative and oftentimes irrational light. Following the tragic shooting of Michael Brown in the fall of 2014***, countless riots shed light on a new twist on a century-old issue; race in America. The man shot was an African-American, unarmed, young adult. He was shot by a white police officer who believed the young man to be a threat to his safety. His death became the catalyst for the modern Black Lives Matter movement’s stance on equality in American justice systems. While the movement places an emphasis on a need for change, much like Martin Luther King did in the 1960’s, the mass riots from Ferguson, Missouri to Baltimore, Maryland contradict civil disobedience. The riots caused hundreds of vandalisms, countless injuries of police officers in both cities, and created fear for the movement. Awareness for the issues were raised because of this movement, but the violent initial spark of it derailed the solid proof of the need for change. This further proves the necessity that civil disobedience is on a free society; peaceable expression of views has a heavier weight when it comes to altering the course of a
The majority rule does not always equal rightness. In past history, the idea of a majority
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi
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”).
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.
(An analysis of how Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau has impacted people through time.)
For as long as there have been rulers, there has been disunity between rulers and ruled. Citizens have always found ways to show their disapproval of governmental decisions and demanded action. Civil Disobedience has existed since the ancient Greek . From Antigone's defiance of Creon over Ghandi's Salt march in India to the Occupy Movement. What does the aforementioned mean?