I believe that civil disobedience can both positively and negatively effect a society. If one peacefully protests against a law that they believe to be unjust when others are too afraid to express that belief, a very positive change can occur. However, if that person sparks a successful movement to get rid of a certain law that is otherwise commonly believed to be good, then that society would be negatively impacted. Instead of peacefully protesting, I believe that it is more effective and efficient to hold certain assemblies and such that all people can participate and share their opinions on. Civil disobedience, although an often positive thing, can have very negative impacts on a free society. Peaceful protests often only contain people with the same opinion. This can make it
Each and everyone would post anonymously. Everyone who posts would have to veryfy that they are at least fifteen years old. The reason younger people cannot contribute is because they are often too immature to seriously express themselves. If a large community of people expressing their ideas is flooded with random nonsense, the overall productivity is diminished. The moderator would pick the top one hundred most discussed topics and at the end of the year there would be mini online polls to collect a general census and make change. In conclusion, civil disobedience would mostly negatively effect a society, and the best way to prevent the negative effects would be to have an online platform where people can peacefully share their beliefs. This platform would make change more efficiently and fairly, and would prevent a lot of violence. If this were to be implemented into today's society, the country would run more smoothly and a lot more fair. All people would be able to speak out and make a difference, whether they're too shy to do it in person, or just to
Oscar Wilde, an Irish author, once suggested that if one were to ever look at the discourse of history, they would find that disobedience is man’s original virtue, and through disobedience social progress is made. The study of history is the study of social progress. Social progressions are the changes that occur in society that progress or improve social, political, and economic structures. Social progress can be achieved in several ways, but just like Oscar Wilde, I believe that disobedience is a valuable human trait that just so happens to be a huge part in the progression our society has made and continues to make.
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.
According to Morris Liebman, author of “Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society Under Law,” “Never in the history of mankind have so many lived so freely, so rightfully, so humanely. This open democratic republic is man’s highest achievement—not only for what it has already accomplished, but more importantly because it affords the greatest opportunity for orderly change and the realization of man’s self-renewing aspirations.” What Liebman fails to realize is that while the United States of America has made improvements, the United States still has a far way to go before it can be considered a fair country. Liebman also states that “The plain fact of human nature is that the organized disobedience of masses stirs up the primitive. This has been true of a soccer crowd and a lynch mob. Psychologically and psychiatrically it is very clear that no man—no matter how well-intentioned—can keep group passions in control.” While disagreeing with the first example from Liebman, it would be difficult to disregard the way that many protests seem to spiral out of control. Peaceful protest for the most part remain peaceful, however some may turn violent very quickly. Liebman also believes that there is no such thing as “righteous civil disobedience” as men and women are deliberately disregarding laws set in place to protect the country, and regards it as deplorable and destructive(Liebman). To combat Liebman, a new age of civil disobedience is rolling in, a more inclusive type. With various social media platforms, word of walkouts and peaceful, with an emphasis on peaceful, protests are spread more quickly. These student led activist groups are popping up more quickly and are not lacking in passion. Many students of today are tired of being told their too young and inexperienced to be taking
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”.
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
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
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.
Civil disobedience is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. The courageous souls that have chosen to partake in civil disobedience have shaped our society today. If it wasn’t for them our country would be in a entirely far worse state than it is now. We owe our gratitude to those who sacrificed their safety and freedom to stand up for what was right even when authority said otherwise. From Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. with the Civil Rights Movements to The Natives protesting the pipelines at Standing Rock. We as citizens of a nation made for the people can never stop fighting unjust authority.
Civil disobedience does positively impact a free society, and let me tell you why. To start off civil disobedience causes change, and change is good. But before the change actually happens the idea needs to come from somewhere. What i mean by this is that when people participate in civil disobedience it shines light on our nations issues. The news channels feast over these types of things. The news channels want something that will gain attention of their viewers and anything to do with laws and government is a gold mine for FOX and MSNBC. An example of this is when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat. This had such a great impact because the word of what she did spread so far and so fast. But shining light on to subject is only the first step to making an
Civil disobedience allows for vast changes in government. U.S. Citizens have been able to ban together and organize nonviolent protests which have lead to increased rights to minorities, workers and women. These protests allow people to be heard, and play an active part in government. The most successfully protests tend to be large, nonviolent, and public. This allows for the idea to be shared with others, showing many find the law unjust, while still retaining the credibility of the protesters.
Civil disobedience, in my opinion, is necessary in times of moral injustice or inequity. Citizens of a society need to protest against a government that does not protect them. English philosopher John Locke believed that all people are born with “natural rights” and that the only purpose of a government was to protect those rights. The success of a society I believe, depends upon the citizens to review the acts of its government and to speak out against any usurpations against its people.
Civil disobedience, when peacefully done, is effective. History has many examples to prove this, the argument appears more legitimate without violence, and the repercussions for suppression of such movements often increase awareness of the movements themselves. While it may take more time to make change, the change is more likely to happen. HISTORICAL EXAMPLES Perhaps the greatest known proponent of civil disobedience is Mahatma Gandhi. His hunger strikes led to Indian independence, and inspired entire generations to enact change with peace. His goals were achieved, despite his own arrest. This peaceful protest showed the British Empire that one man could lead a crusade with no weapons. The Indian people supported Gandhi and soon protested