Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Presentation on Gandhi's views on passive resistance
Civil disobedience in civil rights movement
Civil rights movement and civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Presentation on Gandhi's views on passive resistance
The Necessity of a Moral Compass On Law
Martin Luther King Jr. said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” This is true in its most basic form. A just society is built around the idea of shared values and protected beliefs. If the legislator and implementor of the law becomes a burden to the people they are intended to protect through regulation; then they deserve to be critiqed and their laws disobeyed. Even the birth of the U.S started with a level of civil disobedience, that when left unrecognized, was influential in the creating of the U.S constitution and its values. Howard Zinn agreed. He said "Protest beyond the law is not a departure from democracy; it is absolutely essential to it.” This shows how important the ability to disobey an unjust law is! Without this ability, the people are at the will of the legislator not the other way around. The people decide their societies values. The people decide their societies beliefs. The people decide when enough is enough. In the event of an unjust unprecidented legislation the people are absolutely required to act. To show
…show more content…
Mahatma Gandhi said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and imprisonment.” So while it is a necessary part of democracy to resist an unjust law it is just as equally necessary to do so peacefully, and show no other resistance than to the injustice being presented at the time. If an individual resists further, then their motives, their convictions, and the purity of their actions will be in doubt. They must adhere to a passive resistance. Dedicated solely to the improvement of the morality of the system they are a part
As rational individuals, we do certain things that are beneficial towards us as we are individuals who are self interested. We can also stand up for things we believe in since we have the right. In the film “This is what democracy looks like”, we witness non-violent protestors who are protesting against the WTO and are being stripped of their right of freedom of speech and freedom of association just because the state has a problem with the type of protest that is occurring. Non-violent protestors are being arrested during the WTO meeting without a causal reason. I will argue that the state did not follow the criminal justice system’s liberal principles properly and by looking at the actions of the state against the citizens, citizens were stripped of their liberty and rights. On one hand the citizens are
People have free will. People have the ability to choose right from wrong. With this responsibility people need to think about the outcome of actions and how it will affect society.
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impact a free society because if there isn't, how will people hear the voices of the oppressed and mistreated? Peaceful resistance comes a long way in trying to advance the rights and customs of the oppressed today. For example, The Salt March of 1930 was based on the Salt Act of 1882, which excluded the people the India from producing or getting salt, only British officials. Mahatma Gandhi was the leader of this protest. According to an article by time.com, it says that "The protest continued until Gandhi was granted bargaining rights at a negotiation in London. India didn’t see freedom until 1947, but the salt satyagraha (his brand of civil disobedience) established Gandhi as a force to be reckoned with and set a powerful precedent for future nonviolent protestors, including Martin Luther King Jr.(Sarah Begley,2015)" This means the salt march was a start for India's independence. Also, Gandhi's brand of civil disobedience set precedents for future nonviolent protests. Another Example of how peaceful protests
“Give me liberty or give me death” was a quote that was said by Patrick Henry. This political slogan we, Americans, use has a different meaning as when it was first said by Henry. It is still used today by many people from all different countries.
Gandhi once said “An eye for an eye and the whole world is blind.” This is true in most circumstances but there are exceptions. By comparing acts of nonviolent civil disobedience with acts of violent civil disobedience it is apparent that force or violence is only necessary to combat violence but never if it effects the lives of the innocent. A recurrent theme in each of these examples is that there is a genuine desire to achieve equality and liberty. However, one cannot take away the liberties of others in order to gain their own. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that political change would come faster through nonviolent methods and one can not argue his results as many of the Jim Crow laws were repealed. Similarly, through nonviolent resistance Gandhi was able to eventually free India from the rule of Britain. It is true that sometimes the only way to fight violence is through violence, but as is apparent, much can be said of peaceful demonstrations in order to enact change. Thus, it is the responsibility of we as individuals to understand that nonviolence is often a more viable means to an end than violence.
In a democracy, people choose representatives to lead and govern. However, these representatives might take unpopular steps. In such instances, the people may show their disapproval of a policy and vent their grievances through acts of civil disobedience. Henry Thoreau said, “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” It is both the right and responsibility of a person to fight an unjust law, and civil disobedience allows one to convey his thoughts and ideas in a passive, nonviolent way.
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.
Option 4: Both King and Rawls touch on the nature of just and unjust law, while King goes a step further and argues about responding to unjust law. Write an essay about how individuals do or do not respond to unjust law.
Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? This question raises the discussion of what we call civil disobedience. Elliot Zashin, author of Civil Disobedience and Democracy, defines civil disobedience as, “a knowing violation of public norm (considered binding by local authorities but which may ultimately be invalidated by the courts) as a form of protest: it is non-revolutionary, public, and nonviolent (i.e. there is no use of physical violence except self-defensively when participants are physically attacked, and no resistance to arrest if made properly and without undue force).” (Zashin, 118) One point that Carl Cohen, associate professor of philosophy at University of Michigan, thinks is essential to the definition is that the, “mere knowledge of the unlawfulness does not make it civil disobedience…the civil disobedient must do more than knowingly break the law. Absolutely essential is the further element of protest.” (Cohen, 11) In other words, civil disobedience is knowingly breaking a law to protest the law. This may not be as controversial as some topics, but there are many strong points on both sides.
The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines unjust as “characterized by injustice: Unfair.” At the same time it defines a law as “a binding custom or practice of a community.” With both definitions in mind an unjust law can be described as “a binding custom or practice of a community characterized by injustice and unfairness.” Today one can see unjust laws across the globe, many of which are overlooked by much of the world. At the same time, just laws are often enforced in an unjust manner. The fact that much of the world is corrupt is an obvious fact, however, the appropriate course of action to bring about change, is not always so easy to see. The proper guidelines for bringing about justice are different to different people. Nevertheless, if one observes the actions of Martin Luther King Jr. and compares them to the actions of other groups or individuals who have attempted to bring about social change, a simple conclusion can be reached. Nonviolent means of protest are the most effective way to bring about change, and also the best way to give others an understanding of why the change is necessary.
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.
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
...d and Beyleveld, the view that in order for a law to be valid it must conform to a moral requirement. Further I suggest that only valid laws should be obeyed, with limited exceptions existing. The moral requirement that I will use to validate legal rules is the Essential Moral Requirement (EMR) of laws. (Explain what EMR entails in footnote) I am also presupposing that in a Modern Constitutional Democracy the EMR is present in the legislative frameworks, with the concession that this may not always be the case. From a moral perspective it may be that civil disobedience is the most radical action that can be taken against individual unjust laws without the disobedience itself breaking moral convictions. As a result it may be the citizens last resort to reforming laws without consciously feeling guilty about it, even if sanctions are (footnote civil disobedience).
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment