For better or for worse, the state is held together in only the most fragile way: by the tacit consent of individuals to obey laws which fit in with what they personally believe. The law does not by its definition include contingencies for moral obligations. It might compete with moral obligations for the sympathy of the jury in a court of law, but this is different. Minor civil disobedience can, if tolerated, be transformed into revolutionary fervor and threaten the very existence of the state itself. In the case of Martin Luther King Jr., who disobeyed what he regarded as an unjust application of the law, there is a moral duty to obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. King rebelled on the grounds that doing so was necessary to reform the …show more content…
According to Bentham, “it is men’s duty to obey, just as long as it is in their interest, and no longer”. There is no mediation between the demands of self-interest and the claims to primacy of the state, and as such the utilitarian theory cannot be constructed as a theory of obligation. The social contract, by virtue of being a promise, transforms obedience into obligation: substantive political freedom and equality are given up or exchanged for the protection of the liberal state. Yet, there is one insurmountable flaw when this theory is applied to the state, there has been no explicit ‘social contract’. There is no actual consent granted, no formal signing of a document specifying a citizens consent to be governed. Rather, by remaining within the boundaries of the state, a citizen tacitly agrees to live by the laws of the state. Consent is understood or implied without actually being stated, and is thus tacit. Any individual that withholds their minimally tacit consent to the state and its laws will presumably leave to go and live somewhere else, so long as they are permitted the right to do …show more content…
The state offers certain advantages such as security and since citizens derive benefits from what the state offers, there is an obligation to comply with the laws. But, a hypothetical contract is not a contract, so how can it serve as the basis of political obligation? Thus the question remains: do we have an obligation to obey any law, no matter how unjust or evil, provided only that it is in fact a valid rule of the legal system in which we happen to be physically located? The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, individuals are inherently giving consent to join that society and be governed by its government, if any. Other writers have argued that consent to join the society is not necessarily consent to its government. Yet for that, the government must be according to a constitution that is consistent with the far superior yet unwritten constitutions of nature and society. Therefore, it cannot be assumed that a citizen has given any form of consent, tacit or otherwise, just because he or she remains within the borders of a
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent leader in the independence movement of India once said, “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”(brainyquotes.com) Gandhi states that protest and civil disobedience are necessary when the authority becomes unscrupulous. This correlates to “Declaration of Independence,” by Thomas Jefferson; “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau; and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr., because all three leaders felt that civil disobedience was important to help protest against an unjust ruling. Jefferson stood up to the injustice of the king by writing the Declaration of Independence and urged others to stand up for the independence of America. Thoreau exemplified
human beings are not self-sufficient so they need to live in a social environment, and 2. each person has a natural aptitude for a specified task and should concentrate on developing it (The Republic, pp 56-62). Although a person is not self-sufficient, a composition of people—a state—satisfies the needs of all its members. Furthermore, members can specialize in their natural fortitudes and become more productive members of society. States are going to form, whether purposefully or coincidentally. For this reason, certain rules have to be enacted for the well-being of the state.
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”.
From the monarchs of the ancient era to the democracy of today, order has been maintained by means of rules and regulations known as laws. Compliance with these laws is enforced through punishments ranging in severity according to the crimes committed to reduce violence and misconduct from individuals within a society. However, just as citizens consent to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside, one is compelled to preserve justice and condemn the unjust decisions of man when the social contract contradicts the laws sanctioned by God. Approaching this conflict between natural and manmade laws in a non-violent manner is called “civil disobedience”.
On Socrates’ point of view either the disobedience to the law or to the civil disobedience can be justified. To justify it correctly you have to be able to argue and find reasons for every given rule. Not just believe in what others say.
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.
In Huemer’s The Problem Of Political Authority an argument is made against the idea of a political authority. The idea in this argument is that the government has certain rights that do not pertain to the citizens as well. The purpose of this paper is to show that Huemer’s argument fails by arguing a consent-based response to Huemer’s criticisms, which shows that the government does not actually violate a “social contract” made with society. The idea behind this is that we have actually consented to the government’s authority in several ways without being explicit.
Why partake in civil disobedience? Oscar Wilde, an influential author, has an opinion on utilization of civil disobedience. “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Meaning, if a person wants to change society and its actions, they must rebel against the governing body in order to create effective alterations. Many situations exist where civil disobedience advocates change. In those situations, people have rights for disobedience, but must realize consequences may result from their disobedient actions.
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.
While the law is meant to be universal, reformers, activists, and civil rights leaders all testify to its inconsistencies in the long and unending trial of history. Recognizing the distance between the law and morality and attempting to reconcile them requires both a realistic assessment of the current situation and a naïve optimism that, with the sheer force of democracy, it can and will improve. This explains why the most powerful and ironic motivation for civil disobedience is patriotism. Democracy opposes both tyranny and anarchy, and needs civil disobedience to sustain such a contradiction. The difference in personal and legal interpretation of the law is not the same as the difference between the subjective and the objective; instead,
... the existence of the absolute authority of the sovereign there is the threat of returning to the State of Nature because there is nobody to punish anyone who breaks the social contract. Furthermore, the people have consented to the existence of the sovereign with absolute authority and they must accept that whatever the sovereign decides to do is an action that they have consented to through the social contract.
In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the idea of forced freedom. “Whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be constrained to do so by the entire body; which means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free” (Rousseau, SC, Bk 1. Ch. 7). This forced freedom is necessary for a government that is run by the people and not a small group of few to one sovereign(s). For forced freedom allows a difference of opinions but the outcome is the idea with the greatest acceptance. Because political rule requires the consent of the ruled, the citizens of the state are required to take action within their community.
Returning, the social contract is an ideology that developed centuries ago. This contract is still very prominent in today’s society. When we are born and declared a “United States citizen” your rights are automatically protected by the government. As you age new forms of the social contract develop, for example, when a man approaches the age of 18 he can give up certain liberties, like voluntarily signing up for the military, to enroll into the draft. In return for signing up for the draft, he will be able to collect monetary, social security funds when he reaches a certain
One of the problems faced with governments and leaders of states, is the problem of compliance and how to achieve it. The most simple answer would be for the government to implement rules and standards for the citizens to follow obediently. However this presents yet more issues, for it is conceivable that the citizens will not obey these laws, if it doesn 't fall in line with reasons to obey: As David Held writes, there are 7 reasons we obey; If a law is: 1. Coerced and there is no other choice; 2. out of tradition; 3. apathy; 4. 'pragmatic acquiescence ' (the 'shrug your shoulders