Civil Disobedience is a term that is held in a very stereotypical manner. When I think of the term, I think of a peaceful protest that eventually will solve the everlasting issue of governmental control regarding the people's lives. This term to me insinuates that no matter how terrible the situation at hand can be, individuals in any community like setting can ultimately be the bigger person and do no harm to anyone or anything while demoralizing a law. However in current situations, my assumption of the term has unfortunately taken a turn for the worse. Though this may be the case, I still continue to proclaim that civil disobedience sheds a positive light on communal views and how a society should handle an issue.
Whats is Civil disobedience in a democracy morally justified. Everyone has the same basic human rights in a democery society. Everyone has the same basic human rights in a democratic society. If we don 't protect human rights, everyone wont be equal.
Civil disobedience is a way for people to express themselves on issues that are problematic to society in a peaceful matter. In developed countries like the United States, people have the freedom and a right to be civil disobedience and do so for a better change.Some may see it as a disrespectful way to disrupt the peace and in many communities. It is a dispute between it being right or wrong. Some feel like the power is being taken away from them and they need to do something about it but not cause a scene or disrupt anyone in any way, I believe people have the right to do this because I don't see the problem in someone speaking up something wrong.
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
Like Martin Luther King Jr once said “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” With these words in mind, I affirm the resolution resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified. I offer the following definitions to help clarify the round: Civil disobedience is nonviolent refusal to follow the laws or demands of government to prove a point and the person participating in civil disobedience has to accept the consequences. A democracy is a government by the people, where the people elect representatives or the leader. Not everyone has to vote in a democracy but, the leaders or representatives have to be decided by the majority of eligible voters. Morally is doing the right thing based on the morals of the people
“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed” (Jefferson, 1776/2014, para. 2). Authority should not reside over individuals, but with them. A heart cannot run a body alone. Likewise, a government does not operate a nation by itself. Individuals help maintain the justice of authority.
Many would say that civil disobedience is a problem because others are still breaking the law, but “Our problem is Civil obedience.” (line 16 Zinn). Many people have been killed because of this obedience. Take the Nazis for example: their problem was civil obedience. People obeyed the wrong leaders and the wrong dictations.
People have always found ways to show their disapproval of governmental decisions and took action into it. Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey laws, without using violence. Uncivil disobedience is the refusal to obey laws, using violence. Civil disobedience is more effective in the case of Martin Luther King Junior, the walk-outs, and the sit-ins. Civil disobedience is effective because protesters will not kill anyone so, fewer lives are lost and because it shows that non-violence demonstrates strength. A current issue, we have today in Los Angeles, is the deportation of undocumented, hardworking people.
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
Civil disobedience makes a statement. It is a tool that can be used to make a difference. Peaceful resistance to unjust laws helps a free society by allowing people to be heard without violence. Anyone can attack brutally, either verbally or physically, to get attention. But the best way to be noticed is to, “create such a crisis and establish such a creative tension...that it can no longer be ignored,” as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote in his letter from a Birmingham jail.
Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” (first presented in 1848 and first published 1849) insists, — “That government is best which governs least”, or alternatively, — “That government is best which governs not at all.” Thoreau develops and supports his thesis statement by explaining what government is at best (an expedient) and usually is (inexpedient), and by giving a specific and current example to his readers. The author’s purpose was to educate the masses regarding civil disobedience, teaching them not only that it’s allowed, but that it’s a duty upon them in order to create an ideal government or even world. Thoreau’s intended audience is clearly the people who, as Thoreau himself said, “would not have consented to
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.
Civil disobedience is the deliberate action against an unjust law to invoke a positive change in government and society. Civilians have the right to refute these types of unjust laws to eliminate inequality and government’s unjust nature by following conscience before laws for moral guidance. As demonstrated in Antigone, this is depicted by the daughter of Oedipus, who disobeys Creon’s law for the greater good because of the laws unjust nature. In Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, a naturalist, promotes this concept as well through his philosophical standpoint of the flaws of the government. Lastly, in Dr. King’s letter he qualifies the idea of civilians disobeying their government through non violent campaigns to stand up against
Recently in Hong Kong, young protesters have taken civil disobedience to a whole new level. The pro- democracy protesters have been spotted picking up garbage, washing off graffiti, singing, and doing homework. The protesters are using this extreme civil disobedience to show citizens and government officials they are looking to improve Hong Kong, not destroy it. Martin Luther King Jr, Mahatma Gandhi, and Henry David Thoreau also strongly believed in the effectiveness of civil disobedience to encourage change. In their writings, “from Letter from Birmingham City Jail,” by Martin Luther King, Jr, “On Civil Disobedience,” by Mohandas K. Gandhi and “from Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, they discuss their views on civil disobedience. King, Gandhi, and Thoreau all believe civil disobedience should be nonviolent and rely on
Civil disobedience is the end-result of numerous years of struggle, fear and death. For a large quantity of individuals, civil disobedience is the only way out of oppression from a tyrannical leader. For example, the Chilean population under the military dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet, from 1973 to 1990, lived in constant trepidation because of the endless kidnappings, wrongful incarcerations, violation of human rights, torture and murder. By instilling fear on the masses, Pinochet was guaranteeing that his power and authority would remain in Chile, due to no one having the courage to publicize Pinochet's atrocities. Eventually, Chile's populace became tired of living in fear and mistrust, that they rallied leading to Pinochet being ousted