Peaceful resistance to laws does not only positively impact a free society, it is the very essence of it. When people peacefully resist a law, it is because they have cause to believe that the law is unjust, discriminatory, or immoral. Without the ability to civilly disobey a law that one feels is destructive to the universal values of humanity, the free society quickly descends into a world of oppression, corruption, and fear. It is the duty of the citizens of any nation that prides itself on its commitment to liberty and equality to stand up against laws that are counterintuitive to this commitment. History has repeatedly proved that the peaceful protests of citizens are the driving force of social progress. Those who oppose displays of civil …show more content…
When the “disease of segregation” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963) plagued the states, it was the direct and peaceful actions of the people that lead to the healing of the society. Segregation laws, such as Jim Crow laws in the United States, and Apartheid laws in South Africa, will forever be remembered as laws that infringed upon the natural rights of human beings and disturbed the moral order of society. If some people in a free society have less freedoms than others, than the society ceases to be free. Thousands of people felt that their conscience could not allow them to accept and comply with such laws, thus they civilly disobeyed and eventually brought them to an end. These people had the “highest respect for the law” (Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., 1963) because they understood that the very concept of law should advance the justice within societies, not impede or restrict it. They realized that there were laws in place that contradicted the purpose of the government, and through peaceful protests and negotiations, they alleviated the society and pushed it closer to the ultimate goal of …show more content…
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
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
In the course of history, the civil rights of individuals have often been violated and reaffirmed. Documents such as the Magna Carta and the English Bill of Rights specifically sought out the inclusion of others, limitation of ruling powers, and the restitution of liberty in society and in the human spirit. When the People's right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is violated most impetuously, it is the common principle and moral duty of that People to reverse the aforementioned violation and revert back to rightful autonomy. To do this, many activists turn to civil disobedience. The issue of civil disobedience attracts two crowds of society who debate whether or not peaceful resistance impacts a society in a positive or negative
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.
As humans are imperfect and irrational, they throughout history have formulated governments to deter and prevent crime, organize communities, and act in the best interest of the ruling group [majority or minority]. Since governments can be irrational and humans are emotional, disobedience to authority has and shall always exist in civilised society. True civil disobedience according to Erich Fromm and Mr. Thoreau is against an irrational authority and the focus of protestation is irreconcilable with oneself. Civil disobedience by citizens is intended to evoke change but is drastically different in methodology depending on the government type. The consequences of civil disobedience in mind, in this essay I hereby advise civil disobedience solely
When a government imposes atrocious laws, violates human rights, and acts against the faith of its citizens; a civilian is often left with no choice but to resist. Under extreme circumstances the positive impact of a civilian resistance whether it be violent or peaceful would be apparent. So to answer the question, peaceful resistance has great potential in positively impacting a free society. But this is an over simplified answer and I am not satisfied. Of course it can, we have seen it done throughout history and we continue to see it today. In effort to answer the prompt question as best as I can, I must look into the broader scope of things. I wonder where the line is between merely breaking the law and making a statement in civil disobedience? And generally speaking, it seems more often than not modern governments enforce laws in good faith, within reason, and with the purpose of benefiting
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
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.
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Even in a democracy there are unjust laws, the question comes down to how we handle these laws. Should we be content to obey these laws, or should we try to change them? Most people in a democracy would agree with the second course as the best. There is a right to "revolution" against injustice and one must refuse to support something that is wrong. People should try to change these laws one way to do that is through peaceful resistance.
Not only does peaceful resistance positively affect a free society, it is the bedrock for its survival. When the Founding Fathers congregated to ratify the Bill of Rights, they considered those ten as unalienable because they were representative of the American people’s values. As questions about which rights are guaranteed constantly circulate, civil disobedience can be a critical reminder to lawmakers about which rights the public refuse to forfeit. In a country of such rich diversity, unanimous agreement is a profound rarity. Unrepresented citizens cannot always rely on their peers to represent the same values, and as the late Howard Zinn once stated: “Protest beyond the law is not a departure from the law; it is essential to it.” Civil disobedience grants a voice to the otherwise voiceless. Ideological minorities can voice their discontent by refusing to conform to policies that breach their moral compasses. Without civil disobedience, those unfavored ideologies would struggle to compete in the marketplace of ideas.
After spending a night in jail for his tax evasion, he became inspired to write “Civil Disobedience.” In this essay, he discusses the importance of detaching one’s self from the State and the power it holds over its people, by refraining from paying taxes and putting money into the government. The idea of allowing one’s self to be arrested in order to withhold one’s own values, rather than blindly following the mandates of the government, has inspired other civil rights activists throughout history, such as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King , Jr. Both these men fought against unjust laws, using non-violent, yet effective, methods of protest.
The injustice of segregation laws is leading to a violent impact throughout the African American community, as they strive to have equal rights. In the essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Martin Luther King Jr. describes the many struggles the African American community is going through. Dr. King effectively uses rhetorical appeals to persuade the clergymen that segregation laws are unjust and must end. Dr. King exemplifies his credibility as an advocate for the ending of segregation laws. He gives an example of how society should realize that there is no need for violence by comparing both Socrates’ and his techniques.
In y opinion peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because the people got to know what they are dealing with in that they have rights .''When the bus filled up and no seats remained, the driver ordered four African Americans, including Parks, to clear their seats so that a white man could sit down. All but Parks acquiesced.Parks was arrested for her act of civil disobedience and convicted of violating the Jim Crow laws that enforced racial segregation in the South until 1965''.This show that she resented to getting off because that was not a free society that why people should resented to any right that they think it's wrong. another example is ''Security Agency programs that collect vast amounts of information about the telephone calls made by millions of Americans, as well as e-mails and other files of foreign targets and their American connections. For this, some, including my colleague John Cassidy, are hailing him as a hero and a whistle-blower.''This man is a hero even Dow adore say that he is not because he is showing
Does peaceful resistance affect society negatively or positively? In this last year’s we’ve seen several peaceful resistance against the law like for an example people protesting against the presidential election. Peaceful resistance has affected the society in a positive way it has affected the society in such a positive way because people have the freedom to express their feelings, thoughts, and opinions. If people didn’t have the freedom to peacefully resist that would cause chaos around the country, people would begin to act negatively against the society for not having freedom of speech. When some resists against the law it is most likely that there doing this because they care about a
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
Peaceful resistance to laws both positively and negatively impact a free society in my opinion. I say this because while the intentions are to be nonviolent and peaceful, when there are many in numbers present in current protest events it leads to non-peaceful outcomes. For instance, in recent events in Denver, Native Americans peacefully protested against a pipeline and it turned violent. It didn’t turn violent by them but because police turned violent toward them. Another example is the march in Dallas when one man turned violent. It negatively impacts a free society because lawmakers assume that we as a nation can no longer conduct ourselves in a civilized manner, or we are unable to come against things we don’t agree with in a nonviolent way.