More handpicked essays just for you.
Process on how to write reflective essay
How to write a reflective essay for a college course
How to write an essay from a reflective account
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Civil Disobedience Reflection
I think civil disobedience is an effective means to creating change. Civil disobedience gets the message across and it can bring about change. Violence cannot fix any problem, as it leads to more violence and more hatred. On the other hand, civil disobedience is a way to show the enemy that you do not hate them, but you hate what they are doing or claiming. In addition, civil disobedience shows the opponent that you are willing to let them do anything to you, as long as there is a change brought about for the better. Also, another benefit of using civil disobedience is that people who practice it are showing that they are serious about what they want. They are prepared to go to any extremes of listening to the other party, and only for their own beliefs and against what they know is wrong. This can send a very powerful response, and bring about a positive change.
Violence is not more effective than civil disobedience as it causes more hurt and hatred between the two parties. This leads to more conflict and this way nothing can get resolved. Even though violence can send a strong message of seriousness regarding the issue, violence creates hatred between the two fighting sides. This way both parties feel that the hatred is directed among individuals, even though the hatred is from the view of the two fighting sides. However, civil disobedience shows the silent and peaceful way to allow the opponent to feel as if they have power, which can bring upon change.
I believe it is acceptable and even right to break an unjust law. This is because the law is not fair or right. Laws are supposed to bring justice and if a law cannot bring justice, then breaking it is just and right. For example, laws that go aga...
... middle of paper ...
... as when I make a promise or my sister and I divide chores, we always fight at first about how to divide the work and who would do what. But at the end, we divide the work fairly so that both of us are happy with our decision, and we take into account each other’s needs.
9. The version of a social contract that would be best suited to present times is Hobbes’ contract. This is because in today’s society, people want what they want, and people will do anything to get it. They will fight, break down each other, use violence, and even if this may destroy what they are fighting for, each individual wants to win. For example, in the cake scenario every party would fight to get the biggest piece. However, even if this may destroy the cake itself, winning the fight is more important than the initial cause of getting a bigger piece of the cake, after the fight has started.
Is it okay to break the law if they are unjust and morally incorrect? This is a conflict both Antigone and Martin Luther King Jr. faced when their governments passed laws that went against the natural and god-given rights. In Antigone, the king, Creon, declared that is was illegal to bury the traitor, Polyneices. Antigone, the sister of Polyneices, was deeply upset as it was the law of the Gods to bury a family member or anybody. Martin Luther King was faced with a similar problem, when the government of the United States would not give blacks and other people of color their “God-given and constitutional rights”. By burying her brother, Antigone was not only honoring her brother but also the Gods and by MLK breaking the racist laws of the south
Sometimes civil disobedience can become violent as in the case in South Africa during the struggle to end apartied. It started out with passive resistance, but after years of struggling with no change, a violent group was formed and was willing to do anything to get the freedom they desired.
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.
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated, and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates. Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history has shown us, as in the case of African Americans, the government will expand its role and take away liberties of the few. The individual is justified in acting out in civil disobedience when the government restricts the liberties of the individual.
According to St. Augustine “an unjust law is not a law at all”(p186). This belief has been shared by many influential leaders in the past, including Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. They all believed in a non-violent approach to solving their social grievances. In most cases their approach was successful and was noticed by society and brought about a change in the laws. This nonviolent perspective stems straight from Jesus, who says, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”(p192). Others believe that by being disobedient you are under minding the laws and thus creating chaos within society. But, if unjust laws are not brought into light or under minded, then there will be no change in those laws. Martin Luther King felt there is a misconception of time in that the very flow of time cures all ills. On the contrary, time is neutral and it can be used either destructively or constructively(p190).
In the chapter “Civil Disobedience” by Professor David S. Meyer, he talks about many different movements and social groups that had made an impact within society. He goes over the different areas that civil disobedience covers, and gives detailed examples about how civil disobedience leads to change of some sort. Meyer explains that in order to fully understand what civil disobedience is, it has to be looked at on a different level. Many people have their own interpretation of what they think civil disobedience is. It is seen as challenging public authority, and most of the time leading to an uproar of different groups participating in civil disobedience. When social movements take action into commencing civil disobedience, they do it
Why partake in civil disobedience? Oscar Wilde, an influential author, has an opinion on utilization of civil disobedience. “Disobedience, in the eyes of anyone who has read history, is man's original virtue. It is through disobedience that progress has been made, through disobedience and through rebellion. Meaning, if a person wants to change society and its actions, they must rebel against the governing body in order to create effective alterations. Many situations exist where civil disobedience advocates change. In those situations, people have rights for disobedience, but must realize consequences may result from their disobedient actions.
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.
In the article “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, he talks about the American government and how some of the laws they set into place are hypocritical from which he then talks about how one could rebel against it. It is within this piece that it is seen that Thoreau shows much disdain for slavery and the Mexican war that was presiding over his time period as these were the main reasons for the piece’s comprisal. From there he goes on to justify that if a man is to find something unjust in what the government is doing he has the social and moral duty as an American to rebel against it. Comprising everything from his piece, Thoreau creates this definition
So is civil disobedience still relevant in making change today? Absolutely. Peaceful resistance continues to be a tactic used by civil rights activists. To Malachi Ritscher, the man who set himself on fire in protest of the Iraq invasion; to the controversial group Black Lives Matter, marching and voicing their message on streets of many major cities; and to Malala, the teen civil rights activist in support of women’s education.
Martin Luther King stated “Cowardice asks the question, 'Is it safe?' Expediency asks the question, 'Is it politic?' But conscience asks the question, 'Is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular but because conscience tells one it is right.” Conscience is the main sense of human being that helps to distinguish what is wrong and what is right. Thus, conscience has to be a main driving force when people encounter unjust laws of government. One of the philosophers who favored this idea was Henry David Thoreau. Specifically, he proposed a theory that a personal conscience is the main sense, which is responsible for basic rudiments of social principles and argued that if complying the law forces to support and be a part of unjust affairs of the government then people should make their own decisions founded on morality. Therefore a person should try to follow conscience in order to act in accordance with their moral principles. During Thoreau’s time, he mentioned two main unjust aspects, such as the slavery and Mexican war that cause him to reach the conclusion that individual conscience is crucial and has major priority than current laws. As proof of his idea, Thoreau explained that person should act from own conscience instead of laws in order to avoid sharing responsibility for the government unjust actions. Also, Thoreau claimed that the individual conscience is a base of social morality and principles, which helps to develop to better society. According to Thoreau’s society should show their civil disobedience for any unjust of government.
Civil disobedience is an act of opposing a law one might consider unfair so it’s peacefully disobeyed while accepting the consequences. If there is a way to protest in a way without causing any violent disturbance to the society then why do people avoid using it? Is it because it takes a long time to get the point across or is it because the government won’t care? Great figures like Martin Luther King Jr., Susan B. Anthony, Mohandas Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela have used this tactic and impacted the society greatly. They brought justice and equality for the people that were treated unethically even though it required time. Their point got across effectively without any use violence and has impacted the society for the greater good. Therefore, peaceful resistance to laws can positively impact a free society by allowing it to change the errors of the law, however others might say otherwise.
The institutionalised violence and murder of young Americans with dreams of a better future enraged Americans nationwide calling forth and demanding a change. The call for change began with an African American taking a seat in a restaurant or another public building as a demonstration of peaceful civil disobedience. Civil disobedience as a whole has been a positive addition to our free society because people can see that there is a problem worth their attention. Doing is more effective and attention grabbing than just saying what one believes in and actions speak louder than words for a reason. According to Newton's laws of motion, objections at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. That outside force can be one person who does one thing that may seem insignificant but as that motion gains momentum, when the object hits its target, the impact will be far too large to ignore. Though civil disobedience may be illegal, as time progresses our laws need to progress with
From Black Lives Matter protests to Pro-Gun protests- if you have an opinion there is a group willing to voice it with you. Civil disobedience is uncomfortable. It calls you to make a choice, to take a side or at least consider one seriously. While uncomfortable and awkward for the passerby, the right to peacefully protest is an important one that keeps free society from becoming stagnant. It forces not only the every day citizen to have an opinion, but also those in power to look closely at the decisions and impact of such
To conclude, it is morally permissible to break the laws when it is morally right to do so, the law is unjust or out-dated. It is true that laws reflect what the society thinks, but this rule of majority could repress and tyrannize the interests of the minorities, such as AIDS patients. Thus, it is morally permissible to break the law under certain conditions.