Equally, civil disobedience is not desirable if it is used to fight every little issue in a country. Civil disobedience is not meant to be used to encourage an attitude of repeated acts of civil disobedience. If one group uses the game of civil disobedience to fight the moral evil they are against other groups may also use this method to support their case. Before long it becomes out of hand as every group is using it to fight their battle. According to Robin Celikates (2016), civil disobedience should be restricted to easily detectable violations of clear and basic demands of justice that can also be formulated in terms of individual basic rights (39). When the issues that civil disobedience are being applied to do not fit the context Celikates …show more content…
Civil disobedience is feasible as it can be viewed as a right given to the people that formed society originally in the form of the right to revolution, but now in modern times as civil disobedience. Moreover, civil disobedience is feasible as human history has a record of its use since the Greeks up until this day and age. As civil disobedience has been applied in the past to fight moral evils it can and will continue to be used in the same manner. However, civil disobedience may not always be desirable because violence can occur unfortunately to the protestors as the rules of the game do not apply to the opponents. This can either work in the protestors favor or against them if they retaliate. Moreover, when civil disobedience is use it highlights that there is indeed a serious problem that does not have a proper solution. The use of civil disobedience can tarnish the reputation of the nation and spark an attitude of repeated acts of disobedience. Also, the issue in which civil disobedience is considered to be used for has to meet certain criteria for it to be successful. Thus, civil disobedience is always an option to use when combating a moral evil, but may not be the best tactic to use to fight every moral
Civil Disobedience reveals, just because your Government made the laws, doesn't mean that you can’t at least try to peacefully protest against it. In the “Declaration Of Independence,” Thomas Jefferson states,”... whenever any form of government becomes destructive,
In a free society, civil disobedience is used to nonviolently protest laws against injustices to create positive change. Change is accomplished with the best intention and through nonviolent
Some wonder what Civil Disobedience is and what it is all about. Civil Disobedience is an effective, selfacknowledged denial to obey certain laws, requirements and orders of the government or an occupying worldwide power. Around in 1846 a man named Henry David Thoreau wrote an essay over Civil Disobedience. He wrote this while he sent the night in jail because he had failed to pay 6 years worth of delinquent poll taxes(Resistance to Civil Government) . He would bicker with the people saying he couldn’t pay the funds that helped to assist the US government 's war with Mexico, nor could he pay a government that still allowed slavery in its Southern states.
Civil disobedience is a very strong term used to describe situations in which people are standing up for what they believe in and going against authority. When the word disobedience is used, it is automatically thought of as a negative scenario. Not all civil disobedience situations are bad. For example, in Antigone by Sophocles, Antigone shows civil disobedience when she stands up to Creon so her brother can have a proper burial. From Creon’s view, Antigone was being extremely disobedient to him, but from Antigone and the town’s view, Antigone was standing up for what she believed in and knew was right.
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
The civil disobedience is to describe when the public refusal to obey the law or commands of a government that violate one's personal principals without the act of violence, as an effort to induce a change in governmental policy or legislation. The purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power. For example, if a group of people refuses to pay taxes as a peaceful way to express disapproval of those laws they disagree with or taxes. Civil disobedience may be appropriate when a democratically elected government uses its power to discriminate against their race, sex, religion or skin color. In such a situation, people would most liking object the Laws and start a protest to show they want to be treated equally.
In my opinion, civil disobedience may be viewed as part good and also part bad. The certain view of this could possibly be altered by a racial or also by a cultural background, and it might even be based off of rural or urban life. Some people may think of it as being brave for standing up against all others and believing in him or herself. Although, some others might disagree because when they might be peacefully protesting and or disobeying the law, it will always have consequences in the long run. Which can be closely related to Isaac Newtons Three laws of motion which are; "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction" - Isaac Newton.
Civil disobedience against unjust laws allows people to recognize the faults in our society and government. This is especially true when large numbers of people come together to protest for a certain cause, and against a law, they believe the government should not enforce. For example, Mahatma
However, it could also be argued that civil disobedience is beneficial to ridding a society of unjust law. If there is law, you have a duty as a citizen to obey the law or you may try to convince those in charge to change them. If using civil disobedience is a method of convincing others to change unjust law, civil disobedience must be unjust. If it is true that being a citizen of a society binds you to obeying the laws, and civil disobedience is an act which breaks the law, then it is not just for
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 has been perform as an act of peaceful protest for plenty of years. I believe civil disobedience does indeed work. Civil disobedience opens the eyes of the civilians. It makes them aware of the treatment and their privileges as a citizen of the United States of America.
In the United states people wonder, Is the use of civil disobedience warranted in response to laws that some people feel are unjust? It is a very controversial subject, many believe that it is warranted in response to those laws people feel are unjust or unfair, and others believe that it is not warranted. I believe as if it is both, in many ways it can be justified, many people protest in order for their voices to be heard, for them to hae a say in something, but sometimes it can get out of hand and turn violent and due to that other peoplr believe it is not justified. Recently there has been a lot of protests about the desicions and laws president donald trump is making, in example when a young african american man was shot and killed by
Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey a law or non-payment of taxes. Many of them like Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi has disobey the laws and changed the world. Although some may argue that civil disobedience cannot be justified as a democracy, I assert that it can be justified as a democracy because unjust laws are made by a democratic legislatures and also can be changed by a democratic legislatures. Civil disobedience in a democracy is justified as morally. It is refusal to obey government law and act as non-violent.
Herbert J. Storing, an Associate Professor of Political Science, in “The Case Against Civil Disobedience,” writes, “One of the practical consequences of this institution [civil disobedience] is to divert disobedience and even revolution into the channel of law” (97). What Storing is saying is that civil disobedience will encourage people to break the laws and they will hide under civil disobedience to avoid the law. Also, civil disobedience might split society by creating disagreements with the people, and it could create a political instability. However, Storing fails to see that those who break an unjust law, as discussed above, do not avoid the law, in fact they show respect to the law as they willingly accept the consequences. By accepting the consequences, they show that they are not acting for their own interests but for society’s.
Civil disobedience is nonviolent resistance to a government’s law in seek of change. Civil disobedience is an effective way to bring about change because it is a harmless way of fighting an unjust law or idea, it can educate people about the cause, and it has been successful many times in history. First and foremost, civil disobedience is
Civil Disobedience is known as breaking the law because you don 't agree with a certain law or have a peaceful protest about that law or what you believe in. An example would be when Mahatma Gandhi walked miles to the Indian ocean as the citizens gathered more and more to fight for there Indian Independence. This occasion was called the Salt March. The reason for The Salt March was a March were all the citizens from India walked with gandhi to fight back for their Independence from the British, since it was taken away from the British.