Human’s are and have always been flawed, imperfection is part of the human experience. Following this logic anything built by humen cannot be perfect, being made by human hands. This extends to the systems of government that men form whether we consider them good and just or not. Many of these imperfections have shown themselves over time and in response people have turned to civil disobedience. At what point can we turn against the government by disobeying the law under the idea of civil disobedience? One may use civil disobedience when there is a unjust law hurting society which is under all other conditions ignored. To be civil disobedience a demonstrations need to do only what is necessary to raise unavoidable awareness, which by …show more content…
Martin Luther King being among them. All of these great thinkers stated that there must be a wrong in need of repair to call for such drastic actions. Rawls, in The Justification of Civil Disobedience, talks of what makes these wrongs or unjust laws by talking about what creates a just law. His view of just was routed strongly in equality which means unjust laws would be something that by nature or in application deviates from the equal treatment of people. Because the government is often dictated by the will of the majority King and Rawls would agree that injustice effects the minority of a society heavily and unequally. In a law this can mean it is only applicable to, only applied to, or was written without the consent of, the …show more content…
It is a large step to take because it is violating the institution that gives you so many of the benefits you willingly accept, an institution that as Socrates, as written by Plato, thought essentially raised you. The harm, then, of the unjust law must out weigh the harm disobedience causes society. After all an unjust law being a product of the system as a whole is still a law and defying it like defying any law can hurt the weight we give laws causing a greater harm to society than one incident might generate in isolation. Therefore we must as Plato, and Rev. King state, take the consequences of breaking the unjust law laid out by the governing body, just or not. This can create a bigger splash gathering more attention, defining the seriousness of the situation at hand while protecting society from further cutting the social fabric binding us together. This protection of society leads naturally to the necessity of civil disobedience’s nonviolent nature. The aim is to persuade the majority there is a harm to be fixed and avoided, not to cause the majority harm. The need and drive created by out “natural duty” to foster just establishments is here separated from anger and
Before reading Thoreau’s essay, it did not cross my mind that I would ever disobey the government in order to show my resilience. Obviously there are ways that I could peacefully protest against a decision that the government makes, however, to directly go against the law in order to show what I stand for gave me another look. Now I look at certain decisions that the government is making and whether or not I agree with them. Consequences accompany the decisions made, much like Thoreau was for my actions for direct disobeying the government, it would seem more prideful if I were to do so as I would be able to make a statement, rather than peacefully protesting. Thoreau’s essay left me with a new view on how to make a
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” This powerful, inspirational, and strong leader had a vision. He wanted to see change in the world, so he took action and made it happen. All his actions were regarded as disobedient, but he knew that if one does not fight to make a change in this world, change will never be made. If we have learned anything from history, it should be that taking action against unjust affairs leads to breakthroughs in society.
The relationship between a government and its citizens must maintain the perfect balance between giving and taking. The relationship consists of constant checks and balances; however, it normally goes awry because either the disobedience is ineffective, or the authority is tyrannical. Typically, the relationship between a government and its citizens holds tension. The tension in the relationship stems from poor communication. Citizens communicate their grievances to the government through disobedience; therefore, the government communicates back by reestablishing order.
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,
Civil Disobedience can be defined as violating the law or not following the rules set by society. Time and time again civil disobedience is shown through literature and historical events that impacted today’s society. Thoreau’s story called “Civil Disobedience” presented injustice in his society through personal experiences. Gandhi leads the Indian Independence movement, which promoted civil disobedience with peaceful actions. Citizens of any country have the power to disobey the government and set standards for society.
Luckily, throughout history, citizens have stepped up and fought for their rights. Americans' privacy, security, and quality of life has been improved by breaking the rules. Government often thinks there should be no excuses for breaking the law. This makes sense from a governmental standpoint. However, as a private citizen, sometimes civil disobedience is the only way to protect our rights.
It has been used to successfully bring about change multiple times around the globe. However, the potential for violence and misinterpretation is high. From this, I draw that civil disobedience is a valuable resource that should be used with care, respectfully, with careful thought and planning, and only after the basic principles of the movement are carefully laid out and the participants are educated on the chosen approach. Lastly, any movement that does not benefit the people as a whole, though they employ civil disobedience, is a threat to the society and should respectfully be treated as
Civil disobedience is the refusal to behave in accordance with certain societal norms or to obey certain laws that are seen as unjust. In short, civil disobedience can range from sit-ins, to protests, to marches. Civil disobedience is a tool often used by disenfranchised and downtrodden citizens to usher change from their governments in regard to laws or systems they see as unjust. It allows the citizens of a nation to bring about necessary change in their country without violence. Civil disobedience has proven time and again to be an effective tool in ushering in change throughout history and even today.
I would agree with St. Augustine that "an unjust law is no law at all.” (King) This is the first principle of Civil Disobedience. “You must maintain respect for the rule of law even while disobeying the specific law that you perceive as unjust.” (Grier) Martin also stated that “civil disobedience is a necessary strategy for progress.” (King) He believed that for people to have a virtuous
In The Case Against Civil Disobedience, Storing goes as far as to state that “civil disobedience is obsolete”, and that involvement in the political process is the only way a citizen should bring about change. Civil disobedience, he argues, makes a mockery of the open society established. After all, if citizens had a problem with a democratic regime, shouldn't they take it up with the government through the voice they legally have? Why instigate cynicism about the system by ignoring the laws created by it? Liebman’s article Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Society leaves no reader surprised by its argument that laws should be followed “whether we agree with the particular statute or we don’t”.
Morris I. Leibman, a Chicago Lawyer, stated in his article, Civil Disobedience: A Threat to Our Law Society, that “civil disobedience under [the] circumstances is at best deplorable and at worst destructive”. Although some
Civil disobedience has been influencing people since mid 1800s. According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, civil disobedience is “the refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.” In a more simple way of describing civil disobedience, it is to refuse to obey the law when believed this is unjust, without being violent, According to the philosopher Ronald Dworkin, there are three types of civil disobedience: integrity-based, justice-based and policy-based.
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 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.
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.