Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Civil disobedience compare and contrast non violent resistance
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Peaceful resistance does impact the free society in a positive way because it has shown many opinions that would help contribute making the free society an excellent place represent the freedom we have at the moment. The reason peaceful resistance is a positive impact because the free society could have their opinion as their benefit; however, there would be inevitable conflicts when it comes to one group over another group.
Peaceful resistance, or nonviolent resistance, is a civil disobedience over an uncertain situation a group of people thinks it's unjust, and by using symbolic protesting, they protest without the use of violence. With the used of peaceful resistance, there could be changes made to our free society. Since the community is considered free, it would be difficult to have agreements to be made. A free society is individuals, or a group of people, who act out of their accord. They could either be called as libertarian or objectivist, and focus mostly on the freedom of speech, religion, and economic freedom. In a free society, many would not want to change and would do what the individual think is pleasing. Consequently, many people have different thoughts, so one
…show more content…
Many would either do it peacefully or violently; nevertheless, the disobedience are both acts of protest. The reason of protesting is to show the resistance of accepting a law or rule that a group of individuals has agreed on and considered that it should be a rule everyone must accept whether they like it or not. When it comes to violent protesting, many would protest, but act viciously to get their point across. Consequently, these violent protest could harm another individual who was not even part of the controversies. When it comes to peaceful protesting, there is no violence added to the protesting and it just showing opinions that are belief for a group. And no harm would be done unless the police or government cannot handle this
Nowadays, this concept of using nonviolence is hard to achieve. This is because people think that peaceful protest aren’t effective compared to taking action with their hands. One example is the Blacks Lives Matter Movement. Although there are peaceful protest, there are times when people turn violent against police. This can be counterintuitive since watching these harsh actions by protestors, people start forming negative views about the organization. This leads to people not supporting the cause anymore. Without the support of the public, an organization can’t
...y shocks most of people who hear and see it, encouraging and moving others who also suffer. In instance, Elena screamed at Longoria to show she would not give them any information about resistances and Antonio when Longoria was about to killing her (Tobar 148). Elena sacrificed her life to protect Antonio and her friends who fought against the Guatemalan government without using any violence when she faced Longoria who tried to kill her. She showed it was important not to be daunted by fear and to keep fighting for justice. Mohandas Karamachand Gandhi advocated nonviolent resistance as a means of seeking peace and gaining independence for the Republic of India from Britain. Justice should be served by means in the name of justice. Nonviolent resistance is a powerful way to fight against the cycle of violence and work towards the realization of a peaceful world.
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
This is a reason why most people believe that civil disobedience is bad. Civil disobedience is not dangerous because once someone breaks a law and harms others then it is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience will be peaceful and will not intentionally harm anyone. Thoreau explained in his essay that he “asked for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” This shows that in civil disobedience is only used to change government laws for the benefit of the people. Thoreau also says “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” He believes the law made them subjects and he wanted all men to truly be free, so with civil disobedience he did show he disagreed with the law. With civil disobedience people may show how unjust the laws are because people were being arrested for not
Civil Disobedience is a paradox. Civility and disobedience diametrically oppose one another; civility implies politeness or a regard to the status quo while disobedience is a refusal to submit to the standard. When these words are coupled together, however, they compliment one another. The purpose of Civil Disobedience is to disregard the obligation of observing a law with the intention of highlighting a need for change. Morality, Religion, and Ethics often play into the decision to willingly break a law which creates more depth behind the practical meaning phrase, because those three tend to emphasize a respect for authority and integrity. When people break the law in the name of civility, they often are asking questions like, “What must I
A free society operates on principles of continuous advancement in the social and economic spheres of the society. A free society would be able to disobey laws that they perceive as backwards and limiting on a people group. This group of people practicing civil disobedience must be able to unite and prepare a plan in order to achieve their goals. In the ideal free society, civil disobedience would only progress the society positively.
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
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.
With all of this taken into consideration, including laws such as freedom of speech, it only makes sense that civil disobedience is right and justified. With setbacks from people getting out of hand during protests, it is the best to realize that whilst practicing freedom, denizens of any given place should know the laws and never break them. Lastly, civil disobedience should be allowed and practiced safely, because it has always been around and has often resulted in the improvement of society. As with every law, there will always be setbacks and obstacles that need to be recognized, however, in the end, civil disobedience does more good than bad.
Nonviolent resistance shows the world conviction to your cause and tells them that you are serious about your cause and you are willing to endure a world of pain to get your point of across. Nonviolence takes much discipline to endure all the pain and abuse without resisting or fighting back unprovoked (document 6). The document
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: “Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other non-violent means” (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any aspect of a discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an action, while Hannah Arendt managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews.
There are three ways that oppressed people deal with their oppression. First is acquiescence. Second way is that oppressed people resort physical violence and corroding hatred. However, the third way is the way that Martin Luther suggests us to follow the most. It is nonviolent resistance. It is the way that opens to oppressed people in their quest for freedom. Nonviolence resistance is the practice of achieving goal by protesting with nonviolent. Nonviolence resistance can happen in many situations especially the unpleasant ones and it always lead us to the better.
Violent resistance is resistance that does not revolve around events such as sit-ins and petitions. Violent resistance is most effective because, unlike the method of non-violence, it gathers a more drastic and immediate response from other involved parties. I have seen how effective violent resistance is through our lessons by observing how the majority of my classmates have continuously sided with violent resistance. Malcolm X and Stokely Carmichael both understood the need to use violent resistance; Malcolm X committed many petty crimes and eventually was imprisoned. While in prison, he decided to join the Nation of Islam, a group that integrated the religion Islam into Black Nationalism. He quickly moved up the ranks in the Nation of Islam
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. Even in a democracy there are unjust laws, the question comes down to how we handle these laws. Should we be content to obey these laws, or should we try to change them? Most people in a democracy would agree with the second course as the best. There is a right to "revolution" against injustice and one must refuse to support something that is wrong. People should try to change these laws one way to do that is through peaceful resistance.
The case of individuals practicing civil disobedience should be seen no differently; they see the law they are refusing to stand against as unjustifiable to their moral code and should not be forced to accept it. Practicing civil disobedience should not result in the arrest of the protesters, rather these resources should instead be used to listen to the points they are making and come to a resolution that benefits both parties. Civil disobedience is seen as controversial in democracies because it undermines the nature of democracy and there are more proper ways to go about change, some even fear that it can result in