Carl Cohen's Arguments Against Civil Disobedience

America is like a child who realizes the damages of spilling chocolate milk after the carpet has been stained. The child means no deliberate harm; in fact, he begins to cry and vows to never do it again when the mother informs him of his wrongdoing. But what if the mother kept silent? Would the child have recognized his sin or rather, would he have had discovered a new satisfaction in spilling milk? We, whether consciously or not, are the mothers of America, guarding over any potential harm towards our rights, our liberties, and our voices. In order to defend these intangible treasures we view as our own children, we turn to civil disobedience as a favorable tool. A tool often misinterpreted as a threatening weapon. Too often times is ‘civil

disobedience’ reacted with scorn, as if it is precursor to social disruption. However, civil disobedience is a key necessity for a greater free society. As supported by the works of Carl Cohen, recent events regarding South Korea, and America’s very own Declaration of Independence, it is evident that peaceful resistance elucidates a positive impact that upgrades social function.
What hinders a free nation from embracing civil disobedience lies in human ignorance; what mankind defines as the cause and effect of civil disobedience is awfully misguided.

For instance, a commonly heard opprobrium, as revealed by Carl Cohen in his Arguments Against Civil Disobedience, is how defiance cannot be virtuously justified, for these acts are based upon immoral foundations. Such believers further state that civil opposition reflects assumption of “the superiority of individual to social interests.” This argument portrays that selfishness is an underlying factor of disobeyers. Yet idiocy lies in this statement alongside with “selfishness” and “superiority” as –in fact –it is the opposite. Unlike the assumption that the civil disobedient belittles what the law entails, he actually values it substantially –to the point where, in contrast to what the argument presupposes, he is willing to risk negative consequences. Not to mention, the civil disobedient could not be a greater model of selflessness as Cohen states, “he knowingly does damage to his private interests and perhaps those of his family.” How, then, can civil dissent be heard as alarms towards social damage when the very genesis of it comes with good

will?
Nations have exhibited successful resistance.

The contemporary protests that took place in South Korea represent the epitome of favorable civil opposition. Starting with late October, more than two million Koreans –out of the 50 million –rioted consecutively in the streets of Seoul for the resignation of their own president: Park Geun Hye. In response to this peaceful resistance, South Korea’s parliament made the decision to impeach Park Geun Hye, as she later states that she “heard grave voices of the people and the National Assembly.” In the eyes of an internal observer, this serves as a moment of nationalism yet in the eyes of an external observer, this serves as an era of unity. The protests unite hundreds of thousands of Koreans, portraying the power of democracy. Done with so with grace, protestors condemned the usage of violence and did not denounce but applauded the police for their services.The screams of determined Koreans, the shouts of the younger generation, and the cries of passionate citizens harmonize to produce not a single note but an entire melody that motioned a change in their nation’s

conductor.
This perspective upon society is not new. Thomas Jefferson proclaimed that the Declaration of Independence was simply an “expression of the American mind.” In other words, this document –one that strongly holds America stable –is flexible, as Jefferson believed the people had the freedom to alter or abolish any government. Harris G. Mirkin asserts in Rebellion, Revolution, and the Constitution that the founding fathers repudiate the entitlement of revolution, “partly because they believed in it themselves, partly because the people believed in it, and partly because the legitimacy of the new country rested on this right.” This idea of civil insubordination, expressed through revolutions at times, is in our blood. It is in America’s blood. And rather than suppressing it back, civil disobedience should be released as great outcomes can come from such boldness.
It is perhaps comfortable to disregard resistance; it disrupts the flow of things. But what good is there in going with the flow when the end destination is destruction? Opposition is the most direct way to tell society, to tell the child of the wrongdoings. Civil disobedience has manifested and continues to manifest advantageous outcomes that improve society. It is time to not fear peaceful resistance but welcome it as a sign of advancement for the greater development of human society.