Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Nonviolent philosophies and tactics
Abstract on civil disobedience
The case against civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
My thesis and argument is that civil disobedience is a beneficial technique for people to express and potentially receive what they want. In addition to MLK, even if it’s not necessary for negotiation, I believe that civil disobedience helps people make positive changes within their society. MLK thought that civil disobedience was sometimes necessary for creating the conditions of negotiations. He believed that the government would not know that people have issues with the laws if they did not protest. Civil disobedience in a society is a way for minorities to be heard within their society. It causes more attention than some other forms of protests, and therefore the protesters have a higher chance of being heard. If people do not protest,
MLK once said "We have no alternative but to protest. For many years we have shown an amazing patience. We have sometimes given our white brothers the feeling that we liked the way we were being treated. But we come here tonight to be saved from that patience that makes us patient with anything less than freedom and justice."(The Biography.com website). MLK knew that if we used force it would be a disaster and they would never get freedom. While MLK was at Birmingham Jail he wrote about nonviolence for all people to read. He said"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community, which has constantly refused to negotiate, is forced to confront the issue."(The Biography.com website) So many thought MLK would come and be this guy who would see violence as a tool to use, but when he didn’t people were very supprised that nonviolence was his choice of action. MLK has a family too and it was not only but his family too. They probably wondered all the time if their father would be home that night. Many suffered from these movement acts and wondered if they would be able to kiss their kids goodnight, or see their wifes. Would you be able to not see your dad for weeks or maybe even months? This is why many had patience. They knew what they were fighting for all of them had a purpose. MKL knew one day there would be freedom everywhere. He also knew it wasn’t going to come easily. He never gave up though and he always believed in
Non-violent direct action and respectful disagreement are a form of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King, Jr. defines “civil disobedience” as a way to show others what to do when a law is unjust and unreasonable. King is most famous for his role in leading the African American Civil Rights Movement and using non-violent civil disobedience to promote his beliefs. King also firmly believed that civil disobedience was the way to defeat racial segregation against African Americans. While leading a protest march on the streets, King was arrested and sent to jail. In response to his imprisonment and an article he read while there, King wrote Letter from Birmingham Jail, explaining that an injustice affects everyone and listed his own criteria for
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
Despite the belief that fighting with violence is effective, civil disobedience has been tried throughout history and been successful. Fighting violence with violence leaves no oppertunity for peace to work. By refusing to fight back violently, Martin Luther King Jr. took a race of people, taught them the value of their voice, and they earned the right to vote. Henry David Thoreau presented his doctrine that no man should cooperate with laws that are unjust, but, he must be willing to accept the punishment society sets for breaking those laws, and hundreds of years later, people are still inspired by his words. Mohandas K. Gandhi lead an entire country to its freedom, using only his morals and faith to guide him, as well as those who followed him, proving that one man can make a difference. Civil disobedience is the single tool that any person can use to fight for what they want, and they will be heard. After centuries of questioning it, it appears that the pen truly is mightier than the sword.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, but in a peaceful form of political protests. Martin Luther King Jr. is the best example of a form of civil disobedience for the Civil rights Movement and many more through the late 1950s to the late 1960s. ‘’Martin Luther King Jr. used the power of words and acts of nonviolent resistance, such as protest, grassroots organizing, and civil disobedience.’’
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”).
Laws are implemented to enforce civil proceedings in society, thereby enabling individuals to operate and function within a morally stable population. But there is a delicate and uncertain balance between doing so and restricting personal freedoms--for though individuals should not be wholly free to conduct themselves as they please (for fear of anarchy), neither should they be confined to a level by which they are unable to direct their life’s course and pursue personal betterment. When citizens feel this to be the case, they have the right to peacefully display their grievances with enacted law for the advocation of positive change in the society. For if a society is truly free, the government
By definition, civil disobedience means to actively refuse to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical violence (Wikipedia 2007). Many of the influential people in history have felt passionately about what they believe. These passions caused them to rebel against a government or authority. Many times they felt so strongly about what they believed and how they were being treated was wrong they became disobedient. They would take physical and verbal abuse for being disobedient but would never retaliate. They believed in what they thought was wrong and tried to change the way they were governed. Albert Einstein once said 'never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.' Albert Einstein's views seem to be reasonable. The claim by Albert Einstein is accurate because people should stand up for what they believe, they should know when they are right and their government is wrong, and they should trust in themselves and their own 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.
Throughout Thoreau’s essay, he expressed his opinions and beliefs on the importance of civil disobedience in a society. He talked about how one must use his or her moral sense, conscience, to decide what is just and unjust. From here, Thoreau urged his readers to take action, to stop the machine from continuing its lifeless duty. His call to action is if a system is prone to corruption, the people must disobey it. This means that personal endangerment may be needed to do what is right. Going against the status quo to uphold justice and ethics is the basic message behind Thoreau’s essay.
...rom the Declaration of Independence to the civil rights movement, civil disobedience has been a great tribute to the progression of humanity in striving for equal treatments, only when it does not physically harm others, nor their properties, and also when it does not contravene an already enforced just law. Those who follow civil disobedience properly, find it necessary, like King and his followers, to endure struggle and conflict in order to correct an injustice. Those true civil disobedients find strength of non violence which comes from their willingness to take risks without threatening others, or their properties. They see civil disobedience as an attribute which can help them when law and justice don't go hand in hand. Civil disobedience when used improperly can hurt many people, however when used properly can help gain equal rights and justice for all.
All in all, civil disobedience has made many positive changes in the world today. Nevertheless, the end goal or result of any act of civil disobedience is not meant to benefit the individual, but the community as a whole. The ends of such an act should not be a private gain, but a public gain. Just like in The Hunger Games, how Peeta and Katniss remained brave by risking their lives to stand up for their districts.
The refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes (“Civil Disobedience”). This is the definition of civil disobedience. In the excerpt “Civil Disobedience”, Henry David Thoreau shows that civil disobedience is acceptable. Also in the speech “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July”, Frederick Douglass agrees with Thoreau that civil disobedience is acceptable. Many important events in our history like the Boston Tea Party, the Keystone Pipeline, and Salem Voting Act Rights also show how in some cases civil disobedience is acceptable.
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.
As a child, disobedience becomes an important part of our learning experience. We are frequently reminded of what is good and what is bad. We learn to continue doing what is accepted, and change what is frowned upon. In The Individual in the Chains of Illusion, Fromm tells why disobedience should be accepted rather than obedience. He believes obedience will be the cause of the human race ending. But how could being obedient ruin our society?