Civil Disobedience Definition

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

In other words civil disobedience indicates that the main objective of disobedience is to bring changes in the social or political order that would affect the freedom of citizens. Nonviolence is the right answer to moral issues and is crucial in politics for any government on our time the need for human mankind to overcome oppression avoiding violence without resorting to oppression with violence.

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

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

Civil disobedience allows citizens in the free society of the United States to express their opinions in a way that is sure to evoke governmental attention, while enlightening the public

While growing up, our parents taught us what was right and what was wrong based on their beliefs and views. When we were younger, we were taught to follow and obey those who were older than us and possessed a higher authoritative status. One’s reasoning for being obedient includes: religious beliefs, background, and work ethics. Civil disobedience played a large role in America. Creating protests, riots, and sit-ins, America had many examples of disobedience. In America, we value our rights as citizens and individuals. We have the right to protest as stated in the first amendment of the United States Constitution, which is called Freedom of Speech. According to the Webster Dictionary, civil disobedience is said to be “the refusal to obey government demands or commands and nonresistance to consequent arrest and punishment.” Citizens are willing to accept the legal consequences associated with their disobedient actions. How does the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Fining and jail time are the legal consequences enforced by authority but also there is a trend of change. I believe civil disobedience is justified simply by your own personal beliefs and the rights you attain as a citizen. The law is the law, if you disobey; the authoritative figure is responsible for giving a consequence.

America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.

Using civil disobedience to solve an issue may require mass protests. Using protests shows that many are on your side, and that may bring your opponent down. Some protests may not be a march, for instance, the Boston Tea Party. On December 16, 1773, colonists dressed as Native Americans and raided British Ships in the Boston Harbor. This was because the colonists were very frustrated with the Tea tax. At that time, tea was like a necessity to the colonists and the British. The problem for the colonists was that the British were the ones who controlled the tea. The British East India Company was the company that imported tea. The Boston Tea Party was a huge protest against the tea tax. On that day, 116 people threw the tea on the British ships overboard (“Participants in the Boston Tea Party” 1). This resulted in harming marine life, loss of British tea, and the contamination of the water. These negative results made the British notice the colonists’ problem about the tax and how the colonists feel about the way they are treated by the

Civil Disobedience: The Tools of Progress Since the beginning of days, peaceful protests have pushed the world along. Many people view civil disobedience as a violent action that hardly ever succeeds. However, true civil disobedience, the peaceful protestation of laws, is extremely helpful to society. When those who are oppressed show discontent without violence it is easier for the oppressor to see the other side. Truly peaceful protests achieve change while violent ones only serve as an excuse to dismiss a cause as dangerous or unprofessional.

Civil disobedience, if nothing else, forces the government to act. Whether that action is beneficial or detrimental has varied greatly throughout American history, and usually resulted in a mixed outcome. For example, after South Carolina and the other Southern states seceded, a terrible civil war broke out. In the end, slavery was abolished in all of the states, but at the cost of national unity and the lives of hundreds of thousands of Americans. Similarly, the civil disobedience displayed by the American colonists in Boston during the 1770s led to an aggravated crown and a restless public, eventually giving birth to the American Revolution that would create the United States. The war cost thousands of lives, but brought freedom to the colonies, the very thing that the colonists wanted.

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

Applicable in any free society, these timeless truths emphasize that obligations to the government are dependent on said government upholding its obligations to the citizen; if it fails to accomplish this, there is no greater duty than for the citizen to resist. Indeed, it was these truths that persuaded English colonists of the 1700’s to blatantly protest unfair treatment, and these truths that justified America’s declaration of sovereignty. Thomas Jefferson’s assertion of a government-fearing people as a state of “tyranny” and a people-fearing government as one of “liberty” illuminates the role of the people - the entity that a government should be “servant”

What good can come of disobedience? Many have asked—especially those who’ve been obedient their entire life. Since the time our foot has entered kindergarten, everyone was taught to be respectful and usually, that meant being compliant to our teachers. Being obedient was engraved into our heads at a very young age and that it'll lead us to a better future. Can we honestly say it's our future that we are leading? We'll grow up being a sheep of mankind, and that's why being disobedient is crucial in life. Disobedience allows for society to progress because it generates a better future, promotes individualism, and changes how people view controversial subjects.

John Rawls (1999) defines civil disobedience as a “public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law done with the aim of bringing about a change in law or government policies” (p. 363). If one were to adopt this conception, as I am, they would conclude that Kim Davis’ refusal to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples is indeed an act of civil disobedience. However, I argue that it an act of unjustified civil disobedience, not to be respected or admired, as it violates these three conditions: (1) a sense of justice that respects equal liberty and fairness of opportunity (2) a desire to forge an avenue of mutual cooperation in the future with governance and (3) an act of the powerless against the powerful. In this paper