Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Influence of gandhi on todays india
Importance of civil disobedience
Importance of civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Influence of gandhi on todays india
“Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves.” -Henry David Thoreau The productive disobedience that leaders like Gandhi, Dr. King and the women of the Suffrage Movement became part of the change that we know in the world today. Although laws may have been established and widely followed, these resistance pioneers saw a flaw in the system and fought for the needs of themselves and the future generations. Though many rights have been granted to minorities and oppressed citizens, there are many struggles that still exist for the masses. While many can agree that violence is not the answer, what can truly change the minds of government officials that have a deaf ear to the smaller citizens? The government is used to forcing compliance on those who have little power. But when the last straw has been drawn, and the camel’s back can lift no more, it becomes time for a revolt. Peaceful resistance is an important way for the voice of the silent citizens to be heard. …show more content…
Not only does the peace take volumes of courage, but the self-control. To be beaten, abused, and spat upon while making a statement for justice takes a level of determination that many people would not be able to handle. Gandhi fasted for weeks. Dr. King spoke melodies of peace. Women marched. These revolutionary figures set examples to the people who wish to let their voices be heard without the threat of violence. The civil disobedience brings up the appropriate question, “Are you willing to fight for what you believe in?” Who would be the next leader to rise to the occasion of change and reform? I ask myself if I have enough courage to protest the social injustices that have been set in place. Then, I remember life from the shoes of the oppressed, I quickly remember that standing up for issues greater than myself is what brings forth significant
History has encountered many different individuals whom have each impacted the 21 in one way or another; two important men whom have revolted against the government in order to achieve justice are Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both men impacted numerous individuals with their powerful words, their words carried the ability to inspire both men and women to do right by their morality and not follow unjust laws. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by David Henry Thoreau along with King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, allow the audience to understand what it means to protest for what is moral.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent leader in the independence movement of India once said, “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”(brainyquotes.com) Gandhi states that protest and civil disobedience are necessary when the authority becomes unscrupulous. This correlates to “Declaration of Independence,” by Thomas Jefferson; “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau; and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr., because all three leaders felt that civil disobedience was important to help protest against an unjust ruling. Jefferson stood up to the injustice of the king by writing the Declaration of Independence and urged others to stand up for the independence of America. Thoreau exemplified
Chenoweth seeks to explain why “nonviolent resistance often succeeds compared to violent resistance, and under what conditions nonviolence succeeds or fails”. In recent years, organized groups conducting civil disobedience have been successful using nonviolent tactics such as, “boycotts, strikes, protests, and organized noncooperation”, in order to challenge the current power they were facing.1 Some successful examples of regimes that have been removed from power in recent years are, “Serbia (2000), Madagascar (2002), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-2005), Lebanon (2005), and Nepal (2006)”.1 More recently in 2011 there were major uprising in both Egypt and Tunisia that were able to remove regimes that had been in power for decades, showing that nonviolence can work even if the regime has been in power for years.1
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
All societies will endure times of great trouble where people suffer, and in that suffering, discontent will give birth to voices offering a solution. While some, holding the most genuine motives, will whole heartedly rise to the challenge, others will seem parallel in these actions, but will refuse to take responsibility for any attributions made to the system, doing so in a reckless prosecution towards power. Before establishing a solution, one must find a scapegoat, a targeted group of people, to condemn. This is followed by aggressive name calling, crude insulting, and attacks on the personal rights of citizens. If name calling doesn’t work, a violent revolution will materialize, in which there will be a bloody outcome with many fatalities.
No one possesses the same morals or beliefs. Morality does not have a black and white answer because no one is exactly alike. Everyone has their own opinion and right to voice that opinion, and there are numerous ways of doing so. As a citizen with my own beliefs, I believe I have the right to violate laws if I feel morally obligated to. The amount of progress that America has made in such a short amount of time is astonishing. In some ways it seems as if the only way to make any headway is to speak up. If I was morally opposed to a policy or law I would go against it due to its effectiveness, individualism, and past history of the world that has made immense progress.
The following essay will attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of civil disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on 'Civil Disobedience and Nuclear Protest?' and Habermas's paper on 'Civil Disobedience: Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State.' An outline of both Dworkin's and Habermas's approach will be given , further discussion will then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. Firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more general context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a 'vital and protected form of political communication in modern constitutional democracies' and further the 'civil disobedience has a legitimate if informal place in the political culture of the community.' Civil disobedience can basically be broken down into two methods, either intentionally violating the law and thus incurring arrest (persuasive), or using the power of the masses to make prosecution too costly to pursue (non persuasive).
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 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 political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil disobedience is a well-known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery and second in the application against segregation. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” and King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail” are the leading arguments in defining and encouraging the use of civil disobedience to produce justice from the government despite differences in their separate applications.
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
The American Constitution was created with the goal of forming a “more perfect union”1 and thereby undoubtedly a free society. The peaceful resistance to laws to draw attention to their moral faults, better known a civil disobedience, has contributed to the creation of a “free society” in two senses; a society free of injustice, and a society in which individuals are free to act upon civil liberties (our rights). Resistance to unjust law is the main pillar on which this nation was born, as the revolution was an act of disobedience. In their wisdom, our nation’s founders provided a base for the continuation of such protest through the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, as the First Amendment provides for the freedom of political speech and
I am a pacifist; I do not believe in nor promote violence. I do, however, promote peaceful protest. The act of civil disobedience, of protesting something that is unjust, unconstitutional is well within our constitutional rights. The right to criticize our government is one that was given, that was fought for by our founding fathers. It is an act that affects our society in a very positive way; peaceful resistance encourages others to criticize a cruel and unfair government. Peaceful protests, strikes, and boycotts have the opportunity to gain the government's attention, to try and stop these so-called "anarchists". When we look back at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., we see a hero. We see someone who is intelligent, who is not afraid to argue,
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?