Civil Disobedience Argument Analysis

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. In the Declaration of Independence, it states: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness… That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government.” Our inspired founding fathers wrote this document to influence every American who has ever lived in the country. The incredible thing about this document is it encourages civil disobedience if a government becomes destructive of a person’s life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.

For example, peaceful protests led by Martin Luther King Jr. have led to the abolishment of segregation laws and have allowed African Americans to gain access to their full unalienable rights as guaranteed in the Declaration of Independence. Martin Luther King himself once said: “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law.” If people obeyed unjust laws blindly, they are doing nothing to better the condition of mankind. No advancements would be made, and people would suffer under unjust laws that are designed to hinder and degrade