Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil disobedience for or against
The law of civil disobedience
Civil disobedience for or against
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
A peaceful resistance to laws is what makes the United States a free society. It helps hold the government accountable for their actions, it publicizes important or possibly forgotten interests, and sometimes laws are just wrong for society and the government doesn't always see that. Civil disobedience might not always be agreed upon and it might not always seem right but without it citizens’ voices would fade into the background and the United States would lose the free democracy it so publicly prides itself on. The ability and the right of freedom of speech is what draws people to the US. The ability to think and express yourself and ideas freely is why people risk their lives to provide a more promising future for their families. Without …show more content…
Whether it is right or wrong, whether it benefits the nation or hurts the nation. Since the beginning of time people of had opposing ideas and that raises conflict. It is no different in America, the diverse society of our nation encompasses so many ideas so it only makes sense there's constant conflict. It is how people choose to deal with the conflict that shows who they truly are. The line isn’t always bold and clear to see sometimes there's a gray area we're right and wrong mix. Many cases of civil disobedience are somewhere in that gray area, people either think it's right or wrong or they don't know what to think. In the case of Edward Snowden, written about in a piece by John Cassidy displayed in the New Yorker, it was said Snowden “ brought to light important information that deserves to be public domain, well doing no lasting harm to the national security of his country.” Snowden’s situation was seen differently by all Americans, some were relieved he shed light on the government’s work and injustices, others were fearful that his outburst and disobedience could cost them their lives or hurt their families. The law isn’t always clear, it doesn't always explicitly state what is supposed to happen. Often things are left out for interpretation leading to a plethora of perspectives on one issue. Many Americans disagree with the idea of civil disobedience, they think it's harmful to themselves and the nation and believe that the law should stand and not be opposed by anyone, but what they might not understand is civil disobedience is simply a human taking advantage of their natural, God-given rights and standing up not only for their own freedoms but they freedoms of all Americans and all
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.
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
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
In response to the annexation of Texas in 1845 by the United States, Henry David Thoreau's wrote the essay, Civil Disobedience. Thoreau felt that this purely economic move by the United States expedited the Civil War, which he, and many Americans, disapproved of. In his essay, Thoreau argues that government should not be in control of the people and that the people should be able to rule themselves freely however they please. In addition, he clearly states and points out that in many instances it is best when individual rights take priority over state authority.
It is important to notice that if civil disobedience was not effective, then it would not be continually used to disobey the law. In "The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy” by Kayla Starr, she explains why we have the right to participate in civil disobedience. “The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it” (Starr 1). There are many examples of how effective this act of defiance could be. During the Boston Tea Party, the citizens of Massachusetts practiced civil disobedience by throwing Britain’s tea into the Boston harbor because they did not want to pay taxes on tea. Now, you can see that the Boston Tea Party played a major role in the United States becoming independent from Britain (Starr 1). Although violating the law has consequences, in this case the reward outweighed the risk. I think that by realizing the power that civil disobedience carries, we can stand up against ...
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
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Civil Disobedience is a deliberate violation against the law in order to invoke change against a government policy. Civil disobedience can come in the form of running a red light or j-walking, or in more noticeable methods such as riots. Coined by American author and poet Henry David Thoreau, the term has developed to define the act of disobeying a law one sees as unfit or unjust. Usually the purpose of civil disobedience is to gain public attention to a perceived injustice and appeal to or gain support from the public in a non-violent way. The idea is to force the government to negotiate or else continue with the unwanted behavior; or in simpler terms, to “clog the machine” (“Civil Disobedience”). It is believed by many that the act of civil disobedience is justifiable in a democratic government like that of the United States. A Democracy is defined as a form of government controlled by elected representatives or by the people themselves. However, in order to have a stable government, it must be built on a stable society. Societal welfare is the general good for the public and how its members take action to provide opportunities and minimum standards. According to societal welfare, which is the sake of the emotional and physical well-being of the community, the laws must be abided and civil disobedience is morally unjust in our society. Once any member of the society questions the affairs of the state, the state may be given up for lost (“Jean Jacques Rousseau”).
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 often the last step that people take to bring attention to a topic or subject that they feel strongly about. Every day is full of unjust rulings that may not be to everyone’s liking. Many people fight for what they believe in even if the outcome is bleak. You are your own self and you will always have your opinion that may not match all other citizen’s. Civil disobedience has escalated to a majority of non- violent protesting, although there are some cases including violence. It is a form of rebelling against what they feel is unfair or unconstitutional. Showing civil disobedience is an act that you must be willing to accept the legal consequences, which may include incarceration.
With all of this taken into consideration, including laws such as freedom of speech, it only makes sense that civil disobedience is right and justified. With setbacks from people getting out of hand during protests, it is the best to realize that whilst practicing freedom, denizens of any given place should know the laws and never break them. Lastly, civil disobedience should be allowed and practiced safely, because it has always been around and has often resulted in the improvement of society. As with every law, there will always be setbacks and obstacles that need to be recognized, however, in the end, civil disobedience does more good than bad.
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: “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 non-violent means” (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any aspect of a discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an action, while Hannah Arendt managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews.
When should civil disobedience be condoned? Should it be condoned? Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey government laws, in an effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government won't take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedients to bring awareness and fix the unjust law. An unjust law is that which is not moral and does not respect the "god-given" rights which are entitled to every person. A law which allows freedom for some but not for others, on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs & non-beliefs, race, age, etc is an unjust law. Civil disobedience is justified when its goal is to obtain equal rights and service for everyone, without causing physical damage to people and their property, and without breaking the just laws that are already enforced. Furthermore it should only be practiced when the government fails to uphold justice and fix laws that don't allow everyone the equal rights already given to some.
Say America bakes some cookies and gives half of her children some. Now obviously the other half will proclaim that it is not fair. This is what movements of the 1900s did. They sought to make sure everyone had equal opportunity. But imagine if America baked some cookies to take to her friends, and one child told the others that America had done so. This is a simplified example of Snowden's actions. Snowden didn't help everyone to get along, he merely made the other children mad at their mother for not telling them about cookies. This is the true difference between whether an act of civil disobedience helps or hurts a society. That difference is whether the act brings people together or pushes them apart in the long run. Even a peaceful act can harm relationships between the different races, religions, parties and backgrounds in the United States. But sometimes resisting a law can do both. In more recent years, the forced removal by a lone woman of a Confederate Flag in South Carolina brought both praise and outrage. Such outcomes are not new. Muhammad Ali, the legendary boxer, received support and hate for not accepting the US
From boycotts to pamphlets, speeches to marches and tea parties to sit-ins: there are multitudes of examples of non-violent protests that have led to positive changes in our country. Some of these have even set precedents for other countries to strive for. Some, unfortunately, turned violent and as Jefferson warned us unsuccessful rebellions usually results is a loss of rights for those who protested. I found it interesting that Jefferson said essentially that a little revolution is worth it however: “If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase” (3). While events like Shays Rebellion and John Brown’s raid, ended in bloodshed, and alerted our country, I personally believe more in the value of peaceful protest like in the influential writings of Thomas Paine or in Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s