Summary: The Case Against Civil Disobedience

In this particular case, utilitarianism seems to support a conclusion that goes against a fight humanity already fought during the civil rights movement. Williams transitions from this example into the discussion of something he calls “the precedent effect”. The fear of this effect is that certain horrendous utilitarian acts might encourage people to behave immorally because of the precedent that may be set by these actions. Even though Williams admits that the precedent effect would only occur if people where confused as to why utilitarian’s had to commit a horrendous act, Williams believes that this confusion is a very real possibility if utilitarianism is ever used in

Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. Civil disobedience can have a huge impact on others. It is a way to pave the way for any type of change that may be needed. In Malala Yousafzai’s speech and in Martin Luther King Jr.’s A Letter from Birmingham City Jail, they explain why civil disobedience is sometimes necessary inorder to spread news about an issue people do not care about and to convince people that are against an issue. To begin with, in order to spread news about an issue people don’t care about civil disobedience is needed.

The idea of civil disobedience is to make yourself more “free” by purposely disobeying the government, who Thoreau believes, “is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it,” (Thoreau, On the duty of civil disobedience 3). From this quote, we can see Thoreau believes by doing these acts of disobedience the individual will become one with itself, and be able to break free of society’s grip. However, Thoreau fails to grasp the benefits of being a part of a society, which include receiving aid from the government if you are struggling, having low cost healthcare, and being active with others. These things can be essential to life. As in a transcendental utopian society, there is no way to seek out medical help, as you are out by yourself, with whatever you need as a necessity.

“You must be the change you wish to see in the world” These astonishing words that Mahatma Gandhi said made me suppose that Civil Disobedience is a Moral Responsibility of a citizen because when breaking certain laws, a citizen perhaps incorporate a good intention or a bad intention for breaking it. Citizens break the law occasionally to have their beliefs be heard so change can be assemble. Some ways that Civil Disobedience can be a Moral Responsibility would be breaking the law for the right intentions. An example of breaking the law for the right intentions could be The Salt March that Gandhi Created or, Rosa Parks standing up for her beliefs about her actions, MLK wanting equal rights with caucasian. Illegal Immigrants coming into the

Such censorship would lead to a totalitarian rule by the majority . While hate speech should be better understood, bigoted acts should not be included in hate speech or harmful subjective phrases. hate speech has become a spotlight topic and there is a discussion if free speech should protect it. The main opposition against free speech being an

Civil disobedience is the act of refusal to obey laws set by an authoritative figure such as a king or government. This action occurs when one breaks the law because it is morally justifiable to them. People consciously disobey a law if they find it unjust or to peacefully protest. To break these laws people are willing to take great risks and sacrifice to do what is morally right like the characters do in the pieces of literature Antigone by Sophocles and “If We Must Die” by Claude Mckay. Both of these pieces of literature are about civil disobedience and reveals that civil disobedience requires great sacrifice.

This is different than lawbreaking because lawbreakers try to escape punishment and they can be violent. Civil disobedience is nonviolent and they don’t escape custody or sometimes death. Civil disobedience is a good method of getting rid of unconstitutional laws because it attracts attention and it is nonviolent. One reason that civil disobedience is a justifiable way to change unconstitutional laws is because it attracts attention in the public face. A popular sit-in was the Greensboro sit-in.

When they both decide to go against the government, it is solely because both think that government prevents the Transcendentalist lifestyle. This lifestyle, means that one is exempt from taxes or any other enforced laws and regulations, as a Transcendentalist disagrees with the very core of the state. So, under the guise of moral responsibility, civil disobedience is a way to act for their own personal gain. McCandless has a distaste for government, having strong views on various politicians, many of which he dislikes. His political leanings are reminiscent of Thoreau’s essay ‘On Duty of Civil Disobedience’, and can be summed up with, “ ‘I heartily accept the motto - ‘That

He vehemently declares that the paper cannot be released to the public because it is brimming with ideas that “might easily decondition the more unsettled minds among the higher castes” (Huxley 162). This is a perfect example of the World State regulating what ideas the public has access to. Mond fears that exposing unpopular thoughts to the people, especially to the higher castes who are more capable of critical thinking since they were not poisoned during Bokanovsky’s Process, will tear apart the fabric of society. This paper is a threat to stability and therefore it forbidden to be released. Although many similarities can be drawn between the suppression of speech in Brave New World and the suppression of speech in today’s society, there’s one thing that Huxley was wrong about.

Locke believes that the government has the power to punish those whose actions are detrimental to the civil society the government is tasked to preserve. Given that Davis violates citizens’ rights, Locke would assert that her actions harm society, and that it is within the court’s power to punish

While Bush displays disgust to the King case, and how it had played out later in the speech, calling it “revolting”, it has an ingenuine undertone by his earlier statements towards the rioters and excluding what they had been rioting for. Bush uses “brutality” in a derogatory way, smoothing over the rioter’s cause. Presidents do not have the option to display their true feelings towards a situation, because they must remain neutral for the nation. However, the harsh condemnation of the riots are not neutral, and brushes over the King tragedy, immediately going to the “justice will be served, because America is fair and free.” narrative that destroys any condemnation there was for the justice system originally in reference to the King case. Since 1988, the Justice Department has successfully prosecuted over 100 law enforcement officials for excessive violence.

Sometimes it is best to understand the law first before obeying it. When one thinks a law is unjust, they will go out of their way to go against it and do something about it. At a certain point, one doesn’t have to act accordingly to what they don’t believe in, but they can’t do whatever pleases them. There has been many controversies involving the act of non violence civil disobedience. Although most feel like breaking an unjust law might be the best solution to what they think is right, in reality, I agree to the fact that people are afraid to face the consequences that are given after their actions.

Society’s struggles often go unrecognized by the people standing by. Many people are afraid to act upon a difficult situation such as: someone getting bullied, or noticing someone’s purse getting stolen, and doing nothing about it. The flaws from the 21st century generation that is learned from ancestors, such as someone’s neglect and lack of empathy. Both “Richard Cory” and “Musee des Beaux Arts” emphasize the importance of apathy and empathy. Although the protagonist and subject in both stories have struggles, they both suggest that society should be more observant on seeing what’s wrong.

To me, the arguments made by Beccaria, Howard, and Diderot against the mistreatment of absolutely anyone offered a new concept toward the perspective of conservative members of society to the marginalized population they condemned and exploited. In Beccaria’s On Crime and Punishments, he asserts that the method of torturing people accused of crimes is neither necessary nor ethical, because no one is aware if they are either guilty or innocent. I found it interesting that he mentioned the accused who are weak and succumb to the torture and confess to a crime they did not commit because it emphasized the insufficiency of this method of determining guilt. It seemed as if a prosecutor during their time would employ this strategy to quickly convict