Civil Disobedience Unjust Laws

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.

The United States Declaration of Independence states that "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government" Our nation was a phoenix that rose from the ashes of a monarchy through a resistance that had grown into a revolution. The result of our founding fathers resistance was a nation, a nation that held promises of freedom and equality for all of it’s citizens yet bitterly was not at all close to equality and justice for all. The gruesome and haunting past of America's oppressive history lingers in the socio-political infrastructures which control and drive our government and society. Our nation, horrifically and

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.

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

Accounts of civil disobediences have made their way into the paper many times since the start of this country: the Boston Tea Party, Thoreau's refusal to pay a poll tax, and Rosa Park's decision to stay seated on the bus. All of these examples represent a time of distress when people responded in non-violence to prove a point. But many would ask if this is really proving a point or if it is simply disregarding the law and setting a bad example? Well let me ask you this: would it be better to sit back and to hope that someone will speak out about the problem, or to go forward in violence thinking that that is the only way to achieve something? It seems that an act of non-violence is a way of being heard without coming across as irrational or

Peaceful resistance is a necessity and an integral part of a society because without the ability to peacefully resist the society is not truly free. The use of peaceful resistance has been a common way of expressing a person or group of peoples ideals since Henry David Thoreau wrote his essay called Civil Disobedience in 1849. Thoreau was a famous American writer and philosopher, and the essay talks of how he believes people need to put one’s morals and ideas over laws they may find unjust (Saxby). This is the basis and definition of what peaceful resistance is. The United States Constitution puts emphasis on the individual and if an individual believes in an ideal that goes against a law, they should be able to peacefully resist, especially

One day in my Honors World History class sophomore year we began to learn about the start of rapid, aggressive imperialism along with the rise of fascism and totalitarian governments. As we delved deeper into this era of history, we began to cover the rise of Hitler and the extermination of the Jews. Like any other person, I could not begin to comprehend how the masses of people, a whole country, would approve of such hate and racist rhetoric. As I continued to try and realize how such actions could be justified, I looked at other examples in history of hate being the norm. I realized this was a pattern in history, exploring slavery, the rule of Stalin, the Armenian Genocide, and other injustices through time.

Humanity. It is what connects everyone together, and what drives us to continue to pursue justice and change, even if it is not accepted. Time has shown us that change is possible, if the voice we use to enact it, is strong and powerful. Changing a law, a state of mind, and a country comes as a long and arduous journey, but the reason to fight is much stronger than any challenge it may come with. The Bill of Rights entitles all American Citizens to specific freedoms, including Freedom of Speech, and we, as people may speak out, if we feel we are being deprived of any of our rights.

When a law can be resisted without bringing harm to anyone, then that law should not exist. There are, currently on the books, sodomy bans and legislation against atheists taking political office: These laws are insane. Further, it is the state's job to ensure not only that civil disobedience is possible, but that it works. When civil protest fails to achieve results, violence follows. If a people realize that their peaceful voices will not be heard, such as what occurred in France in 1789, then they shall instead use violent methods.

Personally, I believe that civil disobedience is a lot more than what is included in its definition. My definition of civil disobedience does not only include the peaceful resistance of public laws, but also the disagreement with laws that do not directly affect American life. Civil disobedience should not only be defined as peaceful protest, but as other actions where Americans can stand up for what they believe in, even if there are no consequences. Writing letters, emailing, or even posting on social media should also be considered as forms of disobedience. All citizens should stand up for what they believe in, even when it’s against government views, to protect their own freedom.

Civil Disobedience: Righting the Wrong The foundation of civil disobedience is rooted in the concept of moral principal. When existing laws or accepted social behavior are viewed as being unjust, discriminatory or otherwise considered to be morally unfair, many citizens are compelled to take action in an effort to affect change. In 1849 Thoreau wrote about civil disobedience in his work titled On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau believed that a government with too much control minimizes the ability of the people to exercise their own judgment. He claims, “That government is best which governs least.”

A peaceful resistance to law does impact free society in a positive way. If it weren't were random acts of rebellion, many of the civil rights we have today wouldn't have come into being. People like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and Daniel Ells berg have all committed acts of civil disobedience that have reached the history books and impacted our society for the better. However misunderstandings of the definition of civil disobedience and the actions that can be taken can lead to a bad ending. Some people can confuse peaceful resistance to going against the law for everything they disagree on, resulting in charges and eventually police arrest.

In the Crito by Plato, Socrates argues against civil disobedience, seeing it as an unjust act. Contrasting this view, Martin Luther King argues for civil disobedience against unjust laws, and seeing it as a responsibility of citizens. Civil disobedience is the active refusal to obey certain law, commands or requests of the government. I will argue that the view of Socrates is superior to the view of Martin Luther King on the justness of civil disobedience. Using the argument against harm, I will show that even if a law is viewed as unjust, you must not repay an evil with another evil, as evident in the Crito while contrary to ideas presented by MLK.

Peaceful resistance to laws has a positive impact on a free society. This allows the people of the community to have a say so in which the society is ran. Some people say peaceful resistance is to keep the government in check. Civil disobedience can change the society and raise awareness to disparities. Peaceful resistance is very productive to uphold a free society.