When a citizen abides by the social contract, they initially agree to enter and be a participant of a civil society. The contract essentially binds people into a community that exists for mutual preservation. When a person wants to be a member of civil society, they sacrifice the physical freedom of being able to do whatever they please, but they gain the civil freedom of being able to think and act rationally and morally. Citizens have what is called prima facie obligation to obey the laws of a relatively just state. A prima facie duty is an obligation that we should try to satisfy but that can be overridden on occasion by another, stronger duty. When it comes to prima facie duty, this duty can be outweighed by a higher order obligation or …show more content…
Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The United States and many other counties have a tradition of recognizing some acts of disobedience to law as morally justified. Acts of civil disobedience are generally justified on grounds that it would be immoral to obey such laws. Some of the thresholds you would have to cross before civil disobedience is appropriate would be, that you would have to show that the system of property rights for software is not just a bad system, but an unjust system and adhering to those laws compels you to perform immoral acts or support unjust institutions. When an act of infringement is committed, such as copying PS without permission of the copyright or patent holder it is illegal and harms the owner of the PS in the sense that it deprives the owner of his or her legal rights to require payment in exchange for the use of the software. This situation can be equated with denial of a right to vote in way that as a citizen of a country, you have the right to be active in the society and participate in it as it is your legal right. When the right to vote is denied to someone, they are being deprived of their legal right as a citizen to a
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
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
Civil disobedience has been around for a long time. In Bible times Christians would disobey laws that would go against their beliefs, such as the law that they couldn’t preach. (Acts 4) Christians still disobey laws in many countries that do not let them practice their faith, some end up in jail or killed.
Henry David Thoreau, a philosopher and creative artist as well as an anti slavery activist, wrote his short story “From Resistance to Civil Disobedience”. In this story he’s arrested for not paying his state taxes. At the time the state was engaged in the Mexican-American War that was not only fought over boundaries expanding slavery but was also enacted by President Polk under his own decision. Thoreau thought the war was too aggressive and without just reason.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi
History, as Karl Marx suggest, is defined by human suffering. When a man is oppressed, his natural recours is rebellion. Most ost restiance movements of the past incorporated violenve. Violence has been a mean to an end for centurys. Even today our lives are chronicled through violence and human suffering. However, a paradox ensues when revolutionaries use violence to free themselves from oppression, as a mean to an end. By replacing violence with violence, you are only contuining a destructive cycle that can in no way liberate everybody. It oppresses the oppressor and depresses the depressed. Martin Luther King jr. sought to remedy this unhealthy cycle by prescribing a new approach to rebellion. Not only did he inspire millions to resist their human condition, he did so without resorting to violence. Through his pragmatic and ethical approach to civil rights reform, Martin Luther became a revolutionary revolutionist.
Correct Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience is an act that is practiced in the most necessary and desperate of times, but it is also one that doesn’t take place when needed. The novel The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck and the article Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau speaks of government and how involved they should be. There is much deliberation when it comes to writing about the government and how far their reach is. The goal is to infiltrate the inner workings of the government’s mind and ideals. Although Steinbeck and Thoreau agree on certain topics there are some they clash on as well.
When should civil disobedience be condoned? Should it be condoned? Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey government laws, in an effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government won't take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedients to bring awareness and fix the unjust law. An unjust law is that which is not moral and does not respect the "god-given" rights which are entitled to every person. A law which allows freedom for some but not for others, on the basis of sex, sexual orientation, religious beliefs & non-beliefs, race, age, etc is an unjust law. Civil disobedience is justified when its goal is to obtain equal rights and service for everyone, without causing physical damage to people and their property, and without breaking the just laws that are already enforced. Furthermore it should only be practiced when the government fails to uphold justice and fix laws that don't allow everyone the equal rights already given to some.
Civil disobedience this is how the internet defines it “The refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. The word explains it all disobeying in a Civil way. Many people have became famous for this for standing up for what they think is right. For example, Rosa Parks refusing to sit in the back of the bus, you can say that’s an act of civil disobedience she didn’t think it was right for her to sit in the back of the bus after a long day she disobeyed a law at that time but then we have a group of dumb people that think every law is wrong and its an act of civil disobedience. An example for this civil disobedience would be, people not obeying small laws like speeding, not paying taxes, small laws that to them they seem not right or not hurting anyone when broken. Maybe civil disobed ...
Why Civil Disobedience Is Justified: "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. " This quote is stated by one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson. Now think for a second, what would have happened if our seven founding fathers had never opposed the tyranny regime of Great Britain? If this were to happen, we would never have the great nation we have today.
Should an instrument of God be subjected to the cruel punishment of his corrupt government? Should he obediently condone this gruesome treatment? Or rather than…should he consciously decide to take a stance against this maltreatment? For this creature has inherited the essence of his Creator’s benevolent and intuitive nature during his creation, he possesses the very strength to advocate his beliefs; the very wisdom to enlighten victims robbed of their wonder; and the very courage to construct a better society than the relentless reality that unravels before him. Any morally just citizen should support civil disobedience as retaliation against their tyrannical government.
Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?
America has not had a peaceful past. Bloodshed is what has allowed us to be the great nation we are today. Some of that bloodshed, however, was caused because of civil disobedience. When you consider, what civil disobedience has done, it seems just for all people to agree with it. In some instances, civil disobedience is necessary, but we've reached a point where it would cause much more harm than good.
In a concise essay, Thoreau proffers a challenge to all men, "not to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." Over and over, almost redundantly, Thoreau stresses simplicity and individualism, as most transcendentalists (the new philosophical and literary movement of Thoreau's time) did. Thoreau clearly states, in his On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, that the government is unjust and doesn't represent the will of the people, that one man can't change the government, and that people succumb unconsciously to the will of the government. The first of these is a ridiculous notion; the second contradicted and supported alternately throughout the essay so that one cannot be sure of what they agree or disagree with while reading it because it always contradicts itself in the following paragraph; and the last, a well-thought-out and legitimate concept.