Civil Disobedience Is Not Safe For The People Living Around The Reactor

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

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

From Cherokee Indians refusing to abandon their homes in 1838 to the Sit-ins of the civil rIghts movement in the early 1960s, people have been using acts of civil disobedience to stand against injustice they saw in their communities. Although there are many examples of people abusing this benefit and causing more grief and shame than progress, many have used it to their advantage to bring about positive change for the greater good of society, therefore acts of civil disobedience can positively impact a free society if they remain peaceful, respectful, and justified.

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

According to my text book, civil disobedience is the voluntarily breaking established laws based on one’s moral belief. I strongly believe that civil disobedience is never justified, regardless of the situation. Yes, something might be wrong according to your morals, but laws are in place to prevent chaos. All these events mentioned; war protesters, anti-abortion activist, Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter Movement, Charlottesville, Confederate statues, so on and so forth has created chaos throughout the United States.

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.

There are many different authors who believe that civil disobedience is not the way to go, that it does not solve anything. For example, Robert A. Goldwin writes in “The Case against Civil Disobedience” how “civil disobedience … is an altogether secondary and derivative matter…” He goes on about how civil disobedience is a way for people who want to stand up for their rights can without any harsh punishment and if these people are too scared to do anything violent. Though Goldwin makes a good point about the unimportance of civil disobedience, the fact is that civil disobedience

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 is often not the most effective, safe, or the most viable option, but what happens if it is the only option. Should people be punished for speaking their voice and correcting an injustice against them even though it is illegal? According to harvard professor Johns Rawls most acts of true civil disobedience are morally justified. Although civil disobedience being illegal, it is morally justified in a democracy because it protects the legitimacy of a democracy, gets rid of unregulated unjust rule of majority, and sometimes is the only way for a group to be heard.

Civil Disobedience is a right that is afforded to all people. When Civil Disobedience is used as a method of getting your point across to the government and law officials it is ok although when things turn violent and get out of control then that is when it is bad. Carl Cohen feels that Civil Disobedience is a method that condones going against authority and promotes violence while Henry Thoreau believe that Civil Disobedience is a great way to draw attention to the wrongs that need to be made right. I believe that everyone should have the right to express themselves without fear of negative response. Recently here in Charlotte NC with the death of Lamont Scott, who was believed to be an unarmed black man killed by a cop, there was Civil

In the Seven Arguments Against Civil Disobedience, it argues, “ …. that civil disobedience is never justifiable.” Though the act of civil disobedience is justified by the injustice being taking out on the citizens of America. The web article Civil Disobedience : A Threat to Our Law Society stated, “ Retaliation is not justified by bitterness or past disillusionment.” Yet, this retaliation happened because people were slapped with extreme hostility and bitterness first. Opposing parties of civil disobedience are weak and lack insight of what the true issue is,

Civil disobedience can be justified in certain circumstances because laws do not always apply equally to every individual. When someone¡¯s rights are being harassed

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

Many critics argue that due to the Three Mile Island nuclear incident that occurred March 28, 1979, in Pennsylvania resulted in a reactor meltdown, with no casualties due to a combination of equipment failure and a lack of operators understanding what to do to a faulty reactor. This incident has put the majority public to have safety concerns over not only the operators working in the plants but also the civilians in the surrounding area. Yet since the accident, the United States formed the National Academy for Nuclear Training to improve training the Institute of Nuclear Power Operations which reviews and accredits nuclear utilities’ training programs for all key positions at each plant. In addition, nuclear energy plants have proven the ability to produce clean electricity without greenhouse gas emissions and the reliability due to its increased efficiency and increased power output.