Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Gandhi vs martin luther king essay
Oppinions on civil disobedience
Oppinions on civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Gandhi vs martin luther king essay
There are many different opinions on whose moral responsibility civil disobedience is. Who should the responsibility fall to? The moral responsibility of civil disobedience should fall to the citizens being led, ruled, or governed. According to On Civil Disobedience by Mohandas K. Gandhi, one thing to understand about civil disobedience is that the leader or ruler of a country or group of people is only in charge as long as the people consider themselves to be the leader's subjects. When they do not consider themselves under the leader's rule, the person in power ceases to have power. Therefore, the people have the most power and control. If the people have more power in a country than the leader, they should have the moral responsibility …show more content…
of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. Gandhi states in On Civil Disobedience that if a sovereign betrays their people by making laws to suppress the people, they will not be obeyed. Then, the people have the moral responsibility to refuse to comply with those laws or pay taxes and fines as a form of political protest that is peaceful; acting with civil disobedience. Others may argue that the moral responsibility of civil disobedience goes to the leaders of people unhappy with their conditions and leaders.
Examples of these leaders would be Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. These leaders of the people led great things while using acts of civil disobedience but the power and moral responsibility still belonged to the people. The people could have chosen to not join them and live with their conditions. They could have joined the side of their oppressors. But no, they stood up for what they deserved and used civil disobedience to defend their morals. It was the people's moral responsibility to use civil disobedience to stand up for what was right and join Martin Luther King Jr. in the Civil Rights Movement. The people's moral responsibility when they joined Gandhi in the Salt March. When looking at these examples the people used their responsibility of civil disobedience to achieve what needed to be done, the responsibility never fell upon the leaders. Civil disobedience is a moral responsibility that falls to the citizens being led, ruled, or governed. The people can choose if they want to join others that are using their responsibility, but they have a choice. The leaders of people do not have the responsibility of civil disobedience. Leaders are only leaders of the people as long as the people obey them and respect
them.
According to Oscar Wilde, disobedience is a valuable human trait that promotes social progress. Civil disobedience allows for the unification of various groups to fight towards a common goal, often resulting in change. Historically, there has been much evidence supporting Wilde’s claim. Significant examples of disobedience that led to social progress include the Boston Tea Party, the Salt March, and the Civil Rights Movement.
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
In the great era of foundational philosophers, two stand out, Plato and Thoreau. Each had their own opinion on various topics, especially on civil disobedience. Plato’s life span was approximately 428-348 BC. Plato wrote numerous works throughout his lifetime, however we will be focusing on one, the Crito. Thoreau’s life span was 1817-1862. To help us determine what civil disobedience means to both of these philosophers we will first look at a general definition. According to Merriam-Webster civil disobedience is defined as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.” This definition will act as a springboard to compare and contrast both of their thoughts on the topic. We will determine, according to Plato and Thoreau, when we are called to engage in civil disobedience and when the moral parameters of civil disobedience are pushed too far.
Civil disobedience is being disobedient to certain laws in a peaceful, but active manner. So the person who commits civil disobedience must actively rejects to follow certain laws of government and peacefully accept the consequences. For example, Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a typical example of modern civil disobedience. He actively rejected to follow
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
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.
Civil disobedients is refusing to follow certain laws, as a way of political protest. The Boston Tea Party is an good example of a group of people being disobedient. The colonist were protesting against the unfair tax placed on tea. So they dumped 3 ships worth of tea into the ocean. Prudence Crandall and Fred Korematsu are two less known examples of people being civil disobedients. These two may not be well know but, they impacted the civil right movement.
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 the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
Civil Disobedience is a paradox. Civility and disobedience diametrically oppose one another; civility implies politeness or a regard to the status quo while disobedience is a refusal to submit to the standard. When these words are coupled together, however, they compliment one another. The purpose of Civil Disobedience is to disregard the obligation of observing a law with the intention of highlighting a need for change. Morality, Religion, and Ethics often play into the decision to willingly break a law which creates more depth behind the practical meaning phrase, because those three tend to emphasize a respect for authority and integrity. When people break the law in the name of civility, they often are asking questions like, “What must I
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. 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 increase in inequality.
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.
Have you ever wondered what it was like to make a difference and even change something in your country? How would you feel if you were considered a hero by your people? Civil disobedience is a form of protest that uses a law to show that it is not needed. The protestors intentionally violate a law that they are protesting against (Suber). For example, Rosa Parks used civil disobedience by sitting at the front of the bus because she believed that all people are the same and deserved equal rights. Although civil disobedience uses tactics of nonviolence, it is more than a little passive resistance because it is used to take action by illegal street demonstrations or by peaceful occupations (Starr). Mandela’s involvement in civil disobedience was due to his strongly hatred of racism and racial prejudice in South Africa. Mr. Mandela did achieve success by using guerrilla tactics as well as civil disobedience to stand up to what he believed was right.
It is in human nature to rebel against things that wrong or unjust, but all too often violence is what is resorted to. Therefore, it is interesting to see how some influential leaders, like Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi, could get the results they fought for with peaceful protest. One of the more recent examples of a civil disobedience leader was Imran Khan, a Pakistani government official that fought for the step down of the prime minister after he and others felt that the 2013 general elections were rigged in the prime minister’s favor. Imran Khan started as a modern-day follower of Thoreau, almost following his ideals exactly, but as the protests grew longer, he couldn’t keep his supporters behind him and on the righteous path, leading