Breaking the Law or Civil Desobedience Essay example

Civil Disobedience has been around for hundreds of years. This a practice first put into play by a man by the name of Henry David Thoreau who believed that if you didn’t agree with a rule then you should act against it in a nonviolent way, and be willing to accept any punishment that comes with it. His teachings were followed by famous activists such as Ghandi, and Martin Luther King Jr., and many others.

Civil disobedience has been used to peacefully protest for change for decades. The idea that it is acceptable to rebel against injustice is one that is fundamental to the very start of our nation. The American Revolution, while not a non-violent rebellion, is an example of fighting for something that is believed to be right. It is from here that the idea of civil disobedience stemmed, and from here which it grew. Henry David Thoreau illustrated the need for civil disobedience when he said, “The authority of government… [,] to be strictly just must have the consent of the governed.” The changes that have been brought about by this kind of peaceful protest have changed our world for the better. I believe that civil disobedience is something that

We must first discuss why we should obey laws to begin with. Singer gives two arguments in favor of obeying laws. He explains that first; people do not voluntarily refrain from hurting others so we need laws to deal with these matters. Secondly, we must have some kind of machinery to deal with the lawbreakers (Singer 296). Singer also reminds us that these two arguments for obeying law are neither universally applicable nor conclusive (Singer 297). Civil disobedience itself can be viewed the same way. It must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. There are rules as to what civil disobedience is, but there is no clear-cut universal answer in deciding to be civilly disobedient (Singer 297). Civil disobedience is about purposefully disobeying a law or rule to make a point, to try and change laws and rules in a specific situation, and is disobedience that is executed in a non-violent manner.

At first glance, respect for the social contract and civil disobedience seem to be in direct opposition of each other While some may argue that this affection prevents him from practicing civil disobedience. Additionally, they argue that any violation of the law would erode its power and lead to anarchy. However, their argument oversimplifies the social contract as just a set of rules to be followed when it includes consequences for breaches of the law. Further, as King argues proponents of civil disobedience, who break unjust laws and accept the consequences, display a rich love for the law. To illustrate the difference between civil disobedience and disrespect for the law King lays forth a set of requirements;

Imagine a world without those brave people who dared to not abide by the law and fight for a right. A world without Gandhi would be a world without independent India; without Mandela there would be white superiority in Africa; without freedom fighters, there would be no democracy in Nepal. I believe that all the actions of such law breakers are good, even though they were against various laws, and such actions can be justified to some extent. Even though laws are meant to maintain order and protect rights, it is not always justified; some might be unfair to minorities whereas others might stir up a revolution. Some just violate human rights. In such cases, civil disobedience

Disobedience always comes with a reason, some do it to go against something that is wrong others do it for attention or because they do not care about the situation. When there is an unjust law that is putting someone down or is oppressing it, people will begin to go against the law and not stand around while everyone including themselves gets hurt. Just Laws are to help and to keep everyone safe and unjust laws are made for minorities to stay away from the high-class group who want nothing with them. Sadly today there are still unjust laws to put people down but they are not standing around to let it happen. Martin Luther King could not watch his brothers and sisters be constantly put down so he went against unjust laws to stand his grounds. Antigone shared similarities when she went against king Creon rules rule to not bury her brother Polyneicês, she knew the consequences but paid no minds and stood her ground and kept doing what she has planned to do.

When your human rights are being stripped, it is a great way to change society, as we see in Gandhi’s peaceful revolt. However, in many cases it is not necessary. It would do even more damage, especially if there are other, safer and more human ways for addressing concerns. Laws would be threatened as well as American infrastructure and economy. Through this, civil disobedience requires us to examine the situation. It requires intelligent people to sacrifice something for the greater good, and when it is necessary. The people thinking about disobeying must ask the question “is the law I am being pushed under unjust?” before performing the act. As Gandhi once said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and

Civil disobedience is a crucial part of any free society, especially a society that wishes to give its citizens the most liberty possible. Looking back on American history, one can see that the colonists originally protested the laws that Britain had imposed, and had done so peacefully. By not paying taxes and by assembling outside public offices, the colonists disobeyed British laws and the British crown. Their protests not only helped spark the American Revolution, but also made light of the fact that any free society relies on its citizens to disobey the government, especially when it's done peacefully.

Brilliantly put by what many deem to be America’s greatest president of all time, Abraham Lincoln, “Let every man remember that to violate the law is to trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of his own and his children’s liberty.” Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to comply with certain laws as a form of political protest. Although many may argue that this is the sole way to keep the government in check and to make minorities heard, rational people will realize that it is not this disrespect of the law that proves the democracy of our nation.

If we take a closer look at civil disobedience, we can better understand what it means, its goals, and its outcomes. Civil disobedience predominantly exists as direct and non-violent government defiance. Instead of voicing an opinion with a vote or a simple conversation, civil disobedience stands up for what is right using an individual’s whole influence. Therefore, some sacrifices regarding the legality of actions are made in order to preserve the integrity of the mission. In other words, why should a protester follow the law that they are trying to alter? That doesn’t make much sense, therefore civil disobedience allows unjust laws to be broken for the greater good. This method is very effective if, for example, a minority is attempting to

Thomas Jefferson once said, “If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so.” Citizens of any government are often subject to unjust, unreasonable legislation that they are required to follow - but are they? In fact, in order to uphold a government that reflects the will of the people, citizens must protest unfair laws by deliberately disobeying them. This method often results in immediate change, would help to ban immoral laws that can be dangerous to some groups of people, and upholds the entire idea of a fair government: to let the people rule.

The human race doesn’t take injustice lying down. Over the past hundred years, there has been many examples of people taking a stand for their own rights and freedoms through acts of civil disobedience, defined as “the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest”. While a quick glance at today’s society does show a much more accepting and proper view of people of every race, religion and sexuality, our world does not come without its injustices. I believe that these major injustices keep civil disobedience extremely relevant in our current, modern world.

From the time we are children and throughout the duration of our lives, we are told to abide by certain sets of rules. In most situations this is a perfectly acceptable expectation; speed limits, remaining quiet in libraries, and waiting until the age of twenty-one to drink are all reasonable things to ask of people. After all, these rules and laws are put in place to ensure a peaceful and safe society. However, when these rules begin to infringe upon the rights of certain groups, some citizens turn to civil disobedience as a form of protest. While some may argue that civil disobedience is nothing more than a violation of the law, it has also proven to have a positive impact on society, in more ways than one. Used by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin

Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?

In my opinion, in a democracy, Civil Disobedience is not an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice. By definition a democracy is an organization or situation in which everyone is treated equally and has equal rights, appropriate is “to take or use (something) especially in a way that is illegal, unfair, etc.”, weapon is “something (such as a skill, idea, or tool) that is used to win a contest or achieve something”, justice is “the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals”, and Civil Disobedience is “the refusal to obey laws as a way of forcing the government to do or change something”. By these definitions, it is never appropriate to use Civil Disobedience to get justice. In a true democracy, if there ever was a problem or something one did not agree with, one could bring it up to a leader and they would have to acknowledge the problem. They would have to do this due to the fact that everyone has equal right in a true democracy. Everyone would have to vote, and get