Civil Disobedience: Is It Justifiable?

The civil disobedience is to describe when the public refusal to obey the law or commands of a government that violate one's personal principals without the act of violence, as an effort to induce a change in governmental policy or legislation. The purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. For example, if a group of people refuses to pay taxes as a peaceful way to express disapproval of those laws they disagree with or taxes. Civil disobedience may be appropriate when a democratically elected government uses its power to discriminate against their race, sex, religion or skin color. In such a situation, people would most liking object the Laws and start a protest to show they want to be treated equally. Another point is that civil disobedience is a beneficial behavior in bringing about stability to this society. In fact, Martin Luther King Jr is the one of the most associated with nonviolent civil disobedience he saw color people getting treated unjustly and getting prosecuted because of their skin color. Another example would be the STC protest that occurred this month; six people refused to get off the bus keeping police on the scene for five hours till one in the morning. The six people got arrested but later they were released.

What is civil disobedience? What does it do? Why is it important? Is it a right thing? These few questions might pop into one 's head when they hear civil disobedience. This topic is highly debatable and different people might have different opinions. People who have suffered from some form of injustice may define civil disobedience differently from others. By definition, civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with specific laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. This is important because this is when one fights through a problem without physically hurting someone. Let 's look at some examples of civil disobedience in history, "The Declaration of Independence" by Thomas Jefferson,

Law and order, as far as most westernized intellectuals are concerned, is the absolute protector of rights. Every advanced democracy subscribes to the continuing presence of law and order, and it’s hard to argue with the results seen and enjoyed today. As Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is… to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” While this sentiment is deeply relevant, it trivializes legitimate grievances citizens have against the legal system. Many of these issues can, indeed, be worked out within the system, and permanent change is achievable. Despite this, it is irresponsible to assume all cleavages can be worked out in a court of law, and to deny the necessity of civil disobedience

Over time many things change; laws, beliefs, and even people. But what causes change? Does disobedience create these things to changes? Henry David Thoreau believed that it was one's obligation to disobey laws that were unjust. His actions inspired Mahatma Gandhi to take civil action against Britain how was ruling over them at the time, leading to their independence. Martin Luther King Jr. also believed in civil disobedience which helped him united the majority of African Americans to protest with him in nonviolent ways leading to great change in american societies. But not all disobedience is effective for example, before MLK many Africans wanted to make a change but their anger clouded their judgment leading to deadly riots and protests

As stated before civil disobedience allows for minorities to have say when it comes to making laws. Other forms of protest like legal protest, boycotting, and protest with permit are not as good. These methods are not as likely to get the attention of the majorities because you are not putting yourself at risk and not showing how bad the law is. They also cost money and time for the person to use these forms of protest. If a person performed civil disobedience and got arrested for it, the majority can then see the effect of the

It can be claimed that it is true that we have a moral responsibility to disobey unjust law, however, in doing so is unjust in itself. Taking into account the argument against harm and that one accepts that doing good is just, we must never intentionally do wrong. It is also true in this case when we are harmed, we must not return a harm for a harm. If these statements are true, in that they are good and just, then civil disobedience must be an unjust act. If doing harm to the law we deem unjust through an act of civil disobedience is considered an evil act, and to do good is to be just, then harming the law is an unjust action. However, it could also be argued that civil disobedience is beneficial to ridding a society of unjust law. If there is law, you have a duty as a citizen to obey the law or you may try to convince those in charge to change them. If using civil disobedience is a method of convincing others to change unjust law, civil disobedience must be unjust. If it is true that being a citizen of a society binds you to obeying the laws, and civil disobedience is an act which breaks the law, then it is not just for

Martin Luther King Jr once stated, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” in his Letter from Birmingham Jail in 1963. He was invoking the principle of civil disobedience. He wasn't justifying breaking laws just because, but instead, meant that you break the law and accept your punishment, in hopes that people will come to see that the law is unethical. Civil disobedience plays an important role in how our society has been shaped up until this point. It is out of the selfless act of heroes and heroines of civil disobedience such as Mahatma Gandhi that the society is enjoying the fruits today. This speech is going to demonstrate how civil disobedience has played roles in social reforms, containing unjust rulings

Herbert J. Storing, an Associate Professor of Political Science, in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” writes, “One of the practical consequences of this institution [civil disobedience] is to divert disobedience and even revolution into the channel of law” (97). What Storing is saying is that civil disobedience will encourage people to break the laws and they will hide under civil disobedience to avoid the law. Also, civil disobedience might split society by creating disagreements with the people, and it could create a political instability. However, Storing fails to see that those who break an unjust law, as discussed above, do not avoid the law, in fact they show respect to the law as they willingly accept the consequences. By accepting the consequences, they show that they are not acting for their own interests but for society’s. These reasons will prevent anarchy because one has a conscience to determine which laws to follow and which ones do not; therefore, one shows loyalty to the authority of law and also loyalty to one’s

Civil disobedience is “the refusal to obey or comply with certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as a peaceful form of political protest [such] as boycotting, picketing [or not paying] taxes and fines”(Dictionary). Henry David Thoreau broke the law by not paying his taxes but the motive behind his “crime” is comprehensible. Thoreau being a good humanitarian opposed the injustices being committed against the less fortunate and made sure his money was not being used to glorify and expand the horrible atrocities of war and slavery.

Henry David Thoreau begins his essay Resistance to Civil Government, also known as Civil Disobedience, by stating that governing forces rarely demonstrates itself as useful and that they obtain power from the majority of people simply because the majority is the strongest group, not because their viewpoint is the most reasonable. Thoreau argues that government only exists for the sole purpose of guaranteeing freedom for individuals. He states that he simply wishes for a better government, not to abolish it. The rule of expediency, in Thoreau’s case, can be defined as government officials putting themselves before citizens so that they themselves can be more practical and convenient. Thoreau believes the rule of expediency is an unsatisfactory

I believe that civil disobedience is good for the advancement of the American society. This a simple fact which has been proven many times by history all around the world. A few examples of important historical participants and leaders in civil disobedience include Mohandas Gandhi, Susan B. Anthony, Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and much more. Mohandas Gandhi was an Indian man who spent his life protesting the unjust anti-Indian law in Britan using, you guessed it, civil disobedience. Most importantly on March 30, 1930, when he lead a defiance march to the sea. His efforts caused India to gain its independence in 1947. This happened in the very year he went on a hunger strike. Susan B. Anthony was one of the world most famous suffragettes in American history.

I consider civil disobedience to be an easily-ignored pillar upon which our democracy was founded. In fact we are only established as a nation now because our founding fathers engaged in civil disobedience themselves. We were in a “social contract” of sorts with Great Britain and when we felt that they had not upheld their part of the contract (they did not allow us to create courts to maintain order, or to create a navy to defend ourselves, or to sustain our economy due to an inability to trade with any other countries), Thomas Jefferson concluded that it was our not only our right, but also our duty to break away. And it was Thomas Jefferson that combined all of the works of the great thinkers before him such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke

As Martin Luther King Jr. observes in his "Letters From a Birmingham Jail," it is a sad thing when people condemn the effects of civil disobedience without considering the conditions which festered and led to such a nonviolent protest. As Thoreau writes in his "Civil Disobedience," too much respect for the law can lead people to blindly to terrible things. Consider the Germans who, out of fear of the law, committed the atrocities of the Holocaust; or, the participants of the Milgram experiment on obedience to authority figures, in which men were instructed to continuously 'shock' a hidden person, and which, goaded on by the authority figure, continued even until the subject of the punishment (in actuality an actor) 'died.' Those who choose to take action to take down laws that do not uphold the morals of the people as a whole work instead towards a society based on considered values that respect all of its

Civil disobedience is defined as, the refusal to obey certain laws or governmental demands for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy, characterized by the employment of such nonviolent techniques as boycotting, picketing, and nonpayment of taxes. Henry David Thoreau gives a complete rundown of civil disobedience in his book, Civil Disobedience. In “Letter From Birmingham City Jail”, Martin Luther King, Jr., he talks about how he was put in jail for peaceful protesting “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps..” (King), which is part of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience can be necessary in certain circumstances. There is not a whole lot of reasons that it should be used today but back in the day it was necessary.