Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Aristotle ethical principles
Apartheid laws and their impact on blacks
Effectiveness of nonviolence
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Aristotle ethical principles
Aristotle, a well acclaimed philosopher of ancient Greece, once declared that, “It is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen”. Staying true to humanity’s values makes one a good man, while following the laws set out by the government defines a good citizen. But when those laws infringe upon humanity’s, it causes high controversy and may end up in criminal activity in order to preserve moral values. For such reasons, it would be reasonable to break a law under certain conditions for the sake of self-defense and the greater good. Though some people may advocate that laws are set in place for the security of the general public, there must be a few exceptions to this rule due to some unexpected necessities for one’s own …show more content…
In the late late twentieth century, the apartheid in South Africa portrays the reaping benefits of breaking the law for the greater good of the South Africans. After the all-white government came to power in South Africa, the officials began imposing unfair laws upon restricting the majority nonwhites. This lead to the mass revolution through armed and peaceful protests, breaking laws such as the Population Registration Act. This upheaval led to providing more power to the nonwhites and providing more equality between the people, increasing peace relations and making a more stable environment for the next generation. Such outcomes outweigh the infraction of going against the law, proving it justifiable to break the law for the sustainability of the future. The satyagraha movement in India as well provides an exquisite example as to how breaking a law is acceptable by others. Throughout the oppressive British rule in India, Mahatma Gandhi had advocated a nonviolent approach of overthrowing the British Raj by illegally protesting in the streets. This blatant defiance of the laws set in place by the English monarchy demonstrated an active motivator in urging others to retaliate, resulting in the boycott British goods and India’s independence. The independence brought back the traditional values and brought prosperity to India for years to
Gandhi developed the idea of satyagraha which centered around nonviolent resistance to opposition and evil. The goal of this march was to protest the taxation on salt production and transport in India by the British government. Gandhi's march sparked a wave of civil disobedience which contributed to the expulsion of the British empire. This march had a long term effect, as it inspired many to take part in a successful, organized civil protest. Furthermore, the protest stimulated further motivation for other disobedience and influenced the thinking of many civil disobedience leaders, such as Martin Luther King during the Civil rights
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”.
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.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
I don't think it's right to break the law, no matter what the circumstances are. Breaking the laws is wrong, and people shouldn't think that it's an okay thing to do. If you don't agree with the law, you should try to get in contact with someone high up in the government and explain to them your stance on the issue, and why you believe it needs to be changed, or removed altogether. The laws are in place for a reason, and that is to protect us. American citizens need to start respecting the laws more, and respect those who enforce them.
From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an inequality. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned for a night, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated his intolerance for the American government. Under British rule, India remained oppressed until Mohandas Gandhi, with his doctrine of non-violence lead the country to freedom.
Under British rule in India, the British were harshly oppressive and only interested in exploiting products from India for their own use, causing many Indians to become extremely poor. They became so oppressed they were on the verge of violent civil disobedience, when Gandhi appeared to negotiate with the British threw non-violent tactics such as sit-ins and hunger strikes. The people were supportive on Gandhi and were set to become violent if anything happened to him. Things were resolved without violence.
To understand Mandela’s role in civil disobedience, one must first have the knowledge of his personal life. Mandela was born in the town of Transkei, South Africa into a royal family on July 18,1918 (Klerk). Even though Mandela was born into a royal family, he still noticed the ugly treatment of people in South Africa based on their racial background. Mr. Mandela was educated at the University of Fort Hare and the University of Witwatersrand. Both of these universities are located in South Africa, though Fort Ware is in Eastern Cape while Witwatersrand is located in the capital (Klerk, F). While a student in college Mandela was sent home for protesting against the strict policies of the university with several other classmates. Like many col...
In a citizen’s private domain, they are free to do whatever they would like to do without pressure. However, when it comes to the public domain citizens law abiding because of fear of the consequences if they break them. This statement can be illustrated when Pericles states “but while we associate in private without undue pressure, in public we are especially law abiding because of fear, in our obedience both to anyone holding office and to the laws.” Also, citizens help aid the law by bring down shame on citizens who are
Gandhi’s implementation for the Salt March was the result of British colonization of India, which had caused a change in the lifestyle of the Indians. In 1975 when the East India Company established manufacturing monopolies, which assisted the British to exercise their powers over the salt facilities in India by applying salt taxes. As the British occupied the salt works, the Indian population became deprived of one of the most important resources. Thus, the Indians in nation began to fall apart, because the strict British ruling restricted the Indians to perform against the salt taxes. The Salt March was a way that Gandhi sought to inspire a strong uniformity in the minds of the many. These Indians soon adapted to Gandhi’s nonviolent belief and became known as the satyagrahis, w...
There is many different views on the subject of “unjust laws.” This topic is a big issue that is expressed all over the world in many different ways such as speeches, protests and marches. I believe that, one does have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A few reasons that pursued me to believe this is one, by protesting against an unjust law for someone that can not themselves or will not could help change perspectives and lead to improving the situation. Another important reason is the fact that the United States is a democracy, which means the people have certain powers as well.
Coster, P., & Woolf, A. (Eds.).(2011). World book: South Africa’s Anti-Apartheid Movement, (pp. 56-57). Arcturus Publishers: Chicago.
I completely agree with this statement as it mean what i am trying to convey.If you do not agree with a law that is meant to protect the peoples mental and physical state then that could qualify the person who doesn't agree as a terrorist of sorts if they processed in breaking the law.The way society works is if a majority of the people do something then it is highly probable that many people will follow since no one wants to standout.So if this is the case then if a group of be it a popular well know person where to peacefully resist then it can be expected the more people will follow and if many people are breaking the law or "peacefully resisting then its can be assumed that the society of people are being negatively effected.Another example people that "peacefully resist" that law are feminists.Feminists now a days are using an age old cause in order to support their newly developed twisted ideals that are not the same ideal that feminism was originally created for.This new wave of feminism is more extreme and the people do not fully obey all the laws claiming that it is for a cause, there for it is not a direct violation and if anything peacefully fighting for their beliefs.In conclusion it is very obvious that if someone is the break the law under any circumstances or under any fake name then it is going to negatively impact people and if it is a big enough crime one person could dramatically decrease the free society
South Africa really began to suffer when apartheid was written into the law. Apartheid was first introduced in the 1948 election that the Afrikaner National Party won. The plan was to take the already existing segregation and expand it (Wright, 60). Apartheid was a system that segregated South Africa’s population racially and considered non-whites inferior (“History of South Africa in the apartheid era”). Apartheid was designed to make it legal for Europeans to dominate economics and politics (“History of South Africa in the apartheid era”).
A system of legal separation amongst races dominated the Republic of South Africa, namely apartheid between 1948 until 1993. Apartheid led to the separation and discrimination between whites against people of colour. Not only was this racism commonly accepted between whites against blacks, but it was also legally enforced as white’s maintained priority in terms of housing, education, political power and jobs. I will be examining a particular event, The Soweto Uprising of 1976 which was an education related outcry by students. This event carries with it a great deal of importance as it was a very powerful thing to impact South Africa and help in the deconstruction of the Apartheid government.