Civil Disobedience is an important moral responsibility of a citizen, however it should not get to the level of illegal activity under any circumstances, because great reform can be brought peacefully not violently. In the title named "On Civil Disobedience" by Mohandas K. Ghandi once said: “No country has ever become or will ever become, happy though victory in war”(Mohandas K. Gandhi , 148). Even that long ago, when war was at high, and people embraced it, he knew that the only thing war brought was death, and depression among civilians. This method of civil disobedience has only resulted into more wars, and no real solutions. The most efficient way to the be civilly disobedient is to be peaceful, but willing to stand up for your cause. …show more content…
If people know their cause, and rally about it peacefully, then great reform will happen. Violence and Law breaking, is not an acceptable form of civil disobedience, it does not solve any problems, in fact it causes new ones to arise. Gandhi knew this:"No country has ever become, or will ever become, happy through victory in war. A nation does not rise that way;"("On Civil Disobedience" by Mahatmas K. Ghandi, 148).There are so many plausible reasons not to break the law, in fact, it rules out any reasons to break laws. Think about it, you can’t protest, or rally if you’re sitting in a jail cell, and you can’t show your opinion when your confined. People must protest and perform civil disobedience peacefully, and trust that there are people listening to them somewhere, and that their cause is valid. The idea that laws being removed ruthlessly in order to make things fair is not rational in fact Walter Woon from the essay titled "Rough Justice" adds to this point: " 'Loosening up won’t mean there will be chaos,' he says. 'But the law must be seen to work. The punishment is not the main thing. '
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
Civil disobedience can mean many things to many people. To some people it could mean a non-violent means of protesting or attempting to achieve political goals; however, in the eyes of people like Martin Luther King Jr it could be different. He stated that “one has the moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. Martin Luther King Jr prove this by doing many non-violent protest during his time, to fight against segregation. The meaning of civil disobedience is a bit different in Henry Thoreau’s eyes.
Civil disobedience is the refusal of something in a friendly manner. Politically, America is in a rough situation. America as a whole is slowly separating as a nation. For instance, African-Americans believe they are experiencing prejudice from “white” people. In Baton Rouge, Louisiana there a revolt organized by the infamous “Black Lives Matter” organization.
My Standpoint Civil Disobedience is an effective method of change that has been used throughout history against unjust laws. “Antigone” The story of “Antigone” uses this idea of civil disobedience through Antigone who defies the law given by her new king. As Creon starts off his first day of work he is emotional due to the loss of his eldest son. Because Creon is so emotional, he states that the person who brought war to the land causing his eldest son’s death, shall not be buried.
In the past couple of years we have seen true social justice come to light in the world. Through Black Lives Matter, Ukrainian government and abortion laws we have seen people stand up for what they believe in through protesting against their government. Most governments are not suitable for people but this contract of laws like Thoreau says “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient” (Thoreau 181). The government or authority of a country is simply not sophisticated enough to please everyone and ultimately becomes necessary for people to rebel to get what they want. These protests have shown so much good in the people of our nation,that the government would never be able to contribute to.
Civil disobedience is a way of protesting in a peaceful manner, and willing to suffer to receive what they want. To illustrate, in an interview with Dr Martin Luther King, Jr., he was speaking about civil disobedience in a democratic society. He mentioned that if a person wants to achieve something they need to be willing to go against the law or expressing something else in a peaceful manner, which they must be willing to suffer, so that they can achieve what they want. It is clear from the above that if someone wants to express civil disobedience, they need to be willing to oppose the laws, but in a peaceful manner which may result in them suffering. Also, another example to prove how this is correct, in an articles previously read in the
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
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.
Protesting against the law can affect this country in both a negative and a positive way. Positives have been stated and thoroughly discussed in this essay, however, negatives do apply in certain scenarios, especially when
King qualify the idea of being against the government when it becomes corrupted to guide humanity to a brighter path. Described by Thoreau, civilians are encouraged not to let governments overrule by putting morals ahead of unjust laws. If governments did overrule and people refuse to disobey, the outcomes of letting unjust laws exist would be worse than evil. Thus, civilians need to civilly disobedient during these situations when unjust laws exist but if people are too fearful to act “until they have persuaded the majority… the fault of the government itself” would create a remedy worse than evil (Thoreau 9). Unjust laws need to be transgressed by the citizens in order to create an enlightened state, one that recognizes the higher more independent power of an individual.
As kids people get taught what is wrong and right from a parental figure or experiences of life teach us how to react to different situations. When we finally turn adults no one is there to remind us of what’s good and what's bad so we have to use our past experiences and our knowledge to help guide us. Each adult shapes their societies for their generation and many more generations to come. Mohandas k. Gandhi and Susan B Anthony’s speech along with the article Selma to Montgomery March on history show that civil disobedience is a moral responsibility.
People's justification to engage in civil disobedience rests on the unresponsiveness that their engagement to oppose an unjust law receives. People who yearn for a change in a policy might sometimes find themselves in a dead end because their “attempts to have the laws repealed have been ignored and legal protests and demonstrations have had no success” (Rawls 373). What Rawls says is that civil disobedience is a last option to oppose an unjust law; therefore, providing civil disobedients with a justification for their cause. Civil disobedience is the spark of light that people encountered at the dead end and they hope that this spark of light will illuminate to show that an unjust law should not exist at all. Martin Luther King, Jr, in his “Letter from
Civil Disobedience Thousands of dedicated people march the streets of a huge city, chanting repetitively about needing a change. They proudly hold vibrant signs and banners as they fight for what they believe in. Expressions of determination and hope are visibly spread across their faces. These people aren’t using weapons or violence to fight for their ideas; simply, they are using civil disobedience.
Gandhi Broke The Salt Law on April 6, 1930, it sparked large as a civil disobedience against The British Raj, Salt laws, over 8000 people were jailed for supporting Gandhi 's beliefs about non violence. The reason I assume this act shows how Civil Disobedience is a Moral Responsibility of the citizen because Gandhi did what he thought was right not only for himself but for others and made a stand for the people of India and broke the law to be heard and now the country of Indian has their Independence because of his actions. Additionally this provides Moral Responsibility since Gandhi thought that Marching with the Indian people his actions would not only be the best for him but for his
Because in a true democracy, it is the responsibility of the citizens to disobey the laws that aren’t truly aiding in the progressive nature of society. A democracy can’t be effective without active participation. With that, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is a cornerstone in how we should approach the discussion of whether it is or isn’t reasonable to disobey a law. King agrees with St. Augustine in that “an unjust law is no law at all.” This enforces the idea that an unjust law is virtually not present because it is inevitably meant to be broken.