Civil Disobedience Viewpoints

Civil Disobedience is the unjust in the government, and I for one believe unjust should be demolished. Martin Luther King was influenced by the writings of Henry David Thoreau to non violently take action when the rights of the citizens are in jeopardy. Therefore, civil disobedience can change society for the next generation. Disobedience and rebellion bring about social improvements in society because it will improve the lives of God’s children. Henry David Thoreau argues that men must always do what they think is righteous, non-violently, especially when they think an aspect of government is not working.

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.

Civil disobedience has been discerned in numerous time periods of American history. The definition of disobedience can be interpreted when one or a group prioritizes their conscience of their beliefs over the dictation of laws through rebellion. Notable historical events of slavery and independence has been marked with the disobedience of government laws. Even though the disobedience of societal laws can undermine the corruption of the government, disobedience has undeniably steer societal progress. A form of civil disobedience was the fight for independence of the colonies in the American Revolution.

"If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. "-Socrates. Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society because the society is not free unless it's able to check the government. As long as the protest of the law remains peaceful it is a good thing. It is the public telling the government that they will not let them gain to much power and crush their human rights.

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.

Civil Disobedience means “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest,” according to Dictionary.com. Thoreau used the term “Civil Disobedience” to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to finance the war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. Henry David Thoreau (1817-62) believed that this was a wrong thing to do because it would have caused a huge problem. He wrote the essay “Civil Disobedience” to expose the fact that individuals would do what government told them to and not ask questions. Thoreau uses the concepts of individualism and self- reliance in “Civil Disobedience” to get people to think about what the government is doing.

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” by Henry David Thoreau talks about the importance of virtues and how the virtues of an individual create the very means for a society to thrive. Thoreau explains that these values give individuals a voice and power over their government, which is how a true democracy should function. In a healthy democracy, the government values and respects the individual. Due to this, Thoreau believes that the individuals in society should learn that they must choose to do what is right in order to control their government and be free. Ethics of an individual creates the idea that the people’s morals have influence with the government and brings the truth to correct the wrongs.

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.

The greatest revolutionaries of the United States of America, both past and present, answer to values, principles of American culture and widely-accepted beliefs. They do not answer to laws. The belief that obedience to laws is a sign of patriotism is deeply flawed in the fact that the original patriots of the thirteen colonies were everything except obedient to their government. In the ideal democracy, the core values, moral justices, of the people will be reflected in the laws of the nation. When a split in laws and moral justice occurs, it is the right and obligation of the people of said nation to act as Samuel Adams, John Hancock, and Thomas Jefferson; it is their duty to disobey.

Peaceful resistance with civil disobedience has played a huge role in shaping a free society throughout our history, and not just our history as Americans either. There has been many successful peaceful resistance throughout world history. Many forms of this such as, marches,parades,sit-ins,protests,boycotting and even speeches, have positively impacted or changed a free society. I can't talk about civil disobedience or peaceful resistance without talking about one of the most famous civil disobedience leaders, Martin Luther King Jr., from 1954-1968 the civil rights movement was in effect in the United States. Martin Luther King was a major person during this time.

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.

The question of whether or not peaceful resistance toward the law impacts society in a positive way is really a question of circumstance. If I were to refer back to the historical aspects of the subject, then my immediate answer would be yes, it does; peaceful resistance has often prevailed in situations that required immediate attention, yet were simply overlooked by the general public, despite their importance. One extremely important example of this would be the many boycotts during the civil rights movements of the 60's. Civil disobedience was a way to communicate the true inequality represented by the phrase, ''separate but equal'' by peacefully marching for their beliefs. For example, many white officials used various schemes to prevent

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.

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