With the world that we live in, civil disobedience is an essential method for solving the conflict that is bound to arise. As man lives beside man, dissent is inevitable and clashing viewpoints can very easily become wild dispute. Additionally, these differences may morph or come into being as time passes, and when this happens it is usually necessary for the government to somehow intervene to elude potential disaster. Formulating these laws, though, is not usually a simple process and there are always complications that must be worked out before a solution can be settled upon. For this reason, civil disobedience is essential to society as it gives the possibility for obstacles to be worked out without any other major conflict—no bloodshed or loss of lives is necessary. For example, the 1960s Civil Rights …show more content…
Leibman argues in his address that man does not have the right to disobey a law set by the government, disrupting a peaceful society. But the problem with this argument is that if no one ever stands against the law then nothing can ever be changed. Furthermore, as Martin Luther King, Jr., points out in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, civil disobedience is “nothing new;” it has been practiced since biblical times. He mentions as well the fact that Hitler’s administering of the Holocaust was legal in Germany, while aiding a Jew was not; he says that, had he lived in Germany at the time, he would have readily taken in Jewish refugees despite this action’s illegality. Isn’t this right to stand up for basic human freedoms what America is? We are the land of the free, a nation formed by oppressed peoples seeking to eliminate this oppression from the lives of their ancestors. Is this really America if the persecuted are expected to heed inhuman laws? Civil disobedience is part of what America is, what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they created this
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.
Martin Luther King Junior's letter from a Birmingham Jail was an expression of his encouragement for protest against tradition and established laws and a justification for his actions. King, a leader of a civil-rights group that supported protest against traditional views, encouraged protesting against tradition and established laws that are unjust. In his letter from Birmingham Jail King states: "It was illegal to aid and comfort a Jew in Hitler's Germany. Even so, I am sure that, had I lived in Germany at that time, I would have aided and comforted my Jewish brothers. If today I lived in a Communist country where certain principles dear to the Christian faith are suppressed, I would openly advocate disobeying that country's anti-religious laws." This excerpt shows that King encourages protest because in some situations he deems it necessary, be it in Hitler's Germany, a Communist country, or any situation in which injustices are occurring. In the last sentence of the excerpt King openly admits that he would protest against established laws or traditions. King was against the traditional views and unjust laws, which discriminated against him and his fellow people.
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
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
In 1968, Martin Luther King Jr passed away from a sniper’s bullet. He gave us thirteen years of nonviolent protest during the civil rights movement of the 1950’s. Before I can give my opinion on the history of race relations in the United States since King’s assassination in 1968 strengthened or weakened his arguments on the necessity and value of civil disobedience? You should know the meaning of civil disobedience. The word civil has several definitions. “The one that is intended in this case is "relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state", and so civil disobedience means "disobedience to the state". Sometimes people assume that civil in this case means "observing accepted social forms; polite" which would make civil disobedience something like polite, orderly disobedience. Although this is an acceptable dictionary definition of the word civil, it is not what is intended here. This misinterpretation is one reason the essay (by Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849) is sometimes considered to be an argument for pacifism or for exclusively nonviolent resistance”.
Civil disobedience is a threat to our free society, as one small example can snowball into a much larger issue within our society. Rosa Parks used civil disobedience in a very effective way, but a bank robber could use civil disobedience to explain that he was gaining rights for the poor, much like Rosa Parks did for the African American community. The problem here lies in where you can draw the line with civil disobedience. You could argue that a good argument is needed to justify someone breaking a law, but any argument can be fabricated to expose only the good details that aid their side of the argument. Civil disobedience could even end up in murder where a person decides it is in the best interest of the community to eliminate a person, preventing them from doing damage.
Several people have argued that civil disobedience is never morally justified because it violates the law. Here, I explain why these people believe civil disobedience is never morally justified, give reasons why civil disobedience is considered morally justified, and explain Rawls conditions under which civil disobedience is morally justified.
One reason people use civil disobedience is because of the government. When people use this type of disobedience they are trying to get society to accept the opposing view point (Starr, 1998). In this case the opposing view point is usually the protesters point of view. While this disobedience may be considered illegal, it's usually non-violent and the protesters or activist are willing to accept their punishment. The way they see it is that if the do get arrested, they're just one step closer to getting into court to challenge the constitutionality of the law (Suber, 1999). It even states, that in the Bill of Rights, if the government becomes unjust that it is the job of the people to retaliate and fix the government (Starr, 1998). One objection to civil disobedience is that it can't be justified in democracy because if the unjust laws are made by the legislature then they can be fixed by the legislature....
According to ethical philosophy, civil disobedience can happen within a democracy when dissenters believe that a specific law does not coincide with justice. Yet, this does not necessarily mean that civil disobedience can be used as the first option in refusal a certain law or a set of laws. At the same time, this reservation, as it were, does not mean that civil disobedience can only be used as the last resort. The process is more elaborate than it can be summarized as the first or last solution. It simply relies on the nature, dimensions, and content of the subject that supposed to be the motor of civil disobedience.
Civil disobedience is an active resistance to an unjust law found in a society. This purposeful violation of a law has influenced many changes in societies throughout history and around the world. Some view civil disobedience as having a negative impact on a free society with resistances disturbing the normal order of their lives, but actually the protests are only making the world a better, more equal place for everyone living there. Civil disobedience also establishes the idea that change can take place and be effective with the absence of violence.
Civil disobedience can be used by protesting in front of a state building to demand the government to enact change in the security of citizens, demanding equal treatment and protection of all cultures. The rhetor uses civil disobedience by standing their ground to protest and accepts their punishment, creating a stronger message of how serious they are. The strategy functions as a way to get the attention of the larger society, through media coverage and word of
When we ask ourselves if peaceful resistance to laws positively or negatively impacts a free society we are ultimately asking ourselves if we defend and support our Constitution. Civil disobedience has largely changed in the status quo from its true meaning and can have many different impacts on society, depending on the way we view the act. Whether or not it’s moral also depends on the manner the disobedience is carried out. Throughout history, we’ve seen many cases of civil disobedience take effect. We saw it in the 1919 Egyptian revolution, Gandhi’s idea and application of “Satyagraha”, or “Truth-force”, and even cases such as Martin Luther King’s civil rights movement. All of these examples have led to the betterment of some societal group or even an entire nation, showing that civil disobedience has great benefits to any form of society. Using the United States as a model, it’s clear that we are neither a perfectly free nor a perfectly just society, and
Indeed, disobedience is extremely important in today’s society, despite the fact that it can sometimes lead to chaos. Certain acts of civil disobedience can indeed be harmful and ineffective, where they don’t serve to cause any social progress. For example, practicing civil disobedience by littering doesn’t serve to solve any social issues. Instead, it only harms the environment, where it causes pollution and damages the environment. However, other forms of civil disobedience are actually beneficial to society, where they can spread awareness about a certain issue in society and catalyse change for it. An example of this occurred with how Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat to a white American on December 1, 1955. By practicing civil disobedience
To discern the overall effects of civil disobedience on a society, one must consider the purpose of a government, and determine the lesser of the two evils that the concept of peaceful resistance may bring about.
Bulldozers ahead, desecrating sacred ground, people clamoring over offenses in desperation to stop the destruction of culture, security manhandling all those who dare oppose the construction, “And then the dogs came”(Manning). The world is composed of a collection of different countries, continents, and nations all made up by people, in some instances the nations that reside above its people enforce an injustice into its system, that is when the people’s tool of civil disobedience must be utilized. The impromptu occupation of sacred land facing imminent demolishment by the Meskwaki and Sioux tribes is a demonstration of how civil disobedience can be successful in the short term but may not carry enough momentum to cause wide scale change.