Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The effects of disobedience
The effects of disobedience
The effects of disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The effects of disobedience
There is many different views on the subject of “unjust laws.” This topic is a big issue that is expressed all over the world in many different ways such as speeches, protests and marches. I believe that, one does have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. A few reasons that pursued me to believe this is one, by protesting against an unjust law for someone that can not themselves or will not could help change perspectives and lead to improving the situation. Another important reason is the fact that the United States is a democracy, which means the people have certain powers as well. Lastly, one does have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws because everyone should stand up for what they believe in or want to happen …show more content…
Many people could help promote a change and pursued others if a citizen acted as a voice for someone else as well. By doing this it could possibly change someone's life for the better. Another reason people should speak up about how they feel and what they want, even if it disobeys a law that was already made is because, in the first amendment it states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” This means that citizens have the right to speak up for what they want and protest without having a consequence. Another strong reason I believe in this statement is because, the United States is known as a democracy. No one should have to worry about being punished for speaking up against a law they believe is unjust because of this rule. If the government had all the power, and
... By including the same phrase at the beginning of each example, King underscores how society has not and will not revolutionize for the better unless advocates, like himself, propose the measures for change. Simply putting off such a necessary action will not With such injustices going virtually unnoticed by the white audience, King maintains that “one has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (15). Through appropriate use of antithesis, a distinctive difference that might otherwise be overlooked between the two statements can be formulated.
Everyone has a responsibility to fulfill towards another. That is, if one were to see injustice happening to another, they are bound to do something to help that person. Throughout the history there have been nations that have stood up to this injustice and others who have remained silent, leading to genocide of a whole nation. If the people in the nation of the oppressed would have stood up to the injustice, it would have encouraged others to do so as well and this could have made the tormentors be brought down thus, bringing peace to people of the nation. If everyone has this type of attitude that they know their voice counts, then the world would not be a place that tolerates oppression, but a world that welcomes freedom.
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 ...
I don't think it's right to break the law, no matter what the circumstances are. Breaking the laws is wrong, and people shouldn't think that it's an okay thing to do. If you don't agree with the law, you should try to get in contact with someone high up in the government and explain to them your stance on the issue, and why you believe it needs to be changed, or removed altogether. The laws are in place for a reason, and that is to protect us. American citizens need to start respecting the laws more, and respect those who enforce them.
It is very interesting to see that even though when someone breaks the law in the United States, they will still be protected by that very law. Even as one violates the rights of others, the law will make sure that their rights are protected. It almost seems that has more rights by breaking the law instead of following it. Police are prevented from using extreme force against them and lawyers are at the ready to serve these criminals. Criminals have forfeited their rights when they have violated the rights of others. Why should the law be so intent on protecting their rights, when they have no intent on following the law?
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
Other duties include obeying the law, serving on a jury when summoned, paying taxes, voting, etc. The role of a good citizen does not end at fulfilling their duties, it begins. We must also advocate for recognized injustices in society that call for
When nonviolent civil disobedience occurs, the participating citizens are attempting to bring about positive change to the system--change which has not (and may not have) been brought about by words alone. Given that this constitutional republic is intended to be representative of its citizens in accordance with its fundamental laws, citizens are undoubtedly justified in striving for representation for the public will. This is put succinctly by David Thoreau in the poem Civil Disobedience: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” The government should enact the will of its people, and where people see a law as being unjust this disposition is voided. A purportedly representative governing body should be brought to consider the will of its people in earnest, and peaceful demonstration is the next step where words alone
A person should always – and one might even say has a duty to – place his conscience or the moral laws he has set for himself over any conflicting manmade law. Many examples throughout history have set precedents for this sort of behavior. Antigone’s burial of her brother Polyneices, when Tim DeChistopher outbid many corporations in a land drilling auction to protest global warming, Martin Luther King’s civil disobedience to end segregation, and the Weather Underground’s violent acts of terror to “bring the war home” were all courageous acts (justified or not) of disloyalty to the federal government.
Throughout history, there are always laws and rules; however, these rules wouldn’t evolve and progress in a government if it weren’t for civil disobedience. Throughout the course of history, especially in democracies, civil disobedience has been used to change unright laws, and it gives people the freedom to stand for what they believe in. There are countless examples of people who have protested and changed the world. In a way, it also lets people stay true to what they believe is right, whether it be for religious reasons or just because of their ethics. Civil disobedience is, and always has been, a part of society; it is not only a part of government, but it is also necessary in a democracy where people have freedom of speech and other similar rights.
Throughout its history, the United States of America has been faced with the question of just versus unjust concerning its laws and Supreme Court decisions, as they reflect the legal standards by which people are governed. Unjust decisions can result in an injustice by prohibiting conduct that should be permitted and encroach upon the citizen’s rights. The Supreme Court of the United States is considered to be the law of the land and the decisions it makes must be obeyed. However, the Supreme Court decisions, despite being the law of the land, can be unjust as they reflect on the common sense ideologies of the time and include the final say of the majority. The ruling made in Minersville School District v. Gobitis in 1940 was unjust because it was in violation of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and because it reflected ideologies of the majority and neglected the opinions of the minority. This decision can be negated by making the flag salute a choice that does not encroach upon an individual’s First Amendment rights.
In conclusion, it is indeed every one’s responsibility to respect and obey just laws. But whether to disobey unjust laws calls for a prudent consideration about whether it is for any higher purpose.
Today’s justice system is broken and flawed, with a history of falsely convicting innocent people due to a variety of things, including eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic testing, and even racial bias on the jury. Many wrongful convictions happen as a result of a combination of these things, and other causes can contribute in each individual case (“causes”). Countless people throughout history have been punished for crimes they did not commit, and with recent advancements in DNA testing bringing about hundreds of exonerations of the wrongfully convicted, one has to wonder how many innocents have languished in prisons throughout history. With all the flaws and potential for error in our courtrooms today, justice can not be brought about by our current system; in order to repair it, we need governmental reform to promote true equity and prevent future miscarriages of justice.
“We should never forget that everything Adolf Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’.” - Martin Luther King Jr. Not every law is moral and justifiable even if it’s initial intent was meant to be. Just because a law or a government allows something, it does not mean that what they allow is right. It is important for people to take a stand and fight for justness.
People need to abide by the rules and without them there will be chaos in today worlds. People will be fighting, stealing, and killing people even. So yes we all need to abide the law.