Civil Disobedience Kimi Parker Topic 1 September 12, 2015 Phil 1101 Professor Daniel Hass Socrates believed that civil disobedience was unethical. If a person does not wish for a law to exist, then they must take it to higher powers to appeal that it is wrong and should be removed (Hass).I agree with this to an extent. If there is a just and logical court system or appeal system, then by no means should people be permitted to fight the law by breaking the law. This is especially the case if the laws aren’t actually causing damage to any person’s well being. However, if the court or appeal system will not hear an argument, and their decision can or will hurt people, then I believe it is okay for a person to fight the law in a way that does …show more content…
This doesn’t mean that I believe that they should just turn themselves in, though. And if the courts decide to let them off, then that means that they have won. However, since humans are self serving, fleeing a punishment allows other people to do the same. They can point fingers and say that they do not cross the line that the other drew. This is the extent that I agree with Socrates. Laws can be broken sometimes because not all people are rational. Governing powers become corrupt by irrational people. The flaw in Socrates’ argument was about the rationality of man, since emotions cloud our …show more content…
He believed that not letting the people hear about the information that he knew could hurt them. I do not know enough about whether or not his beliefs were true, and that’s not the point. He used his opinions and ethics against the laws and the people who were enforcing the laws, believing that it wouldn’t hurt anybody. It is not my place to call whether or not any of this was true. It was the court’s decision. And he did not let the court make their decision. I disagree with this. He broke a law, and he knew that he was breaking it. Anybody else who broke this law would have to be punished under normal circumstances. Not serving the punishment is basically just self preservation and in the person’s own self interest. If it was a special circumstance, then those who enforce the law would be able to make the call of whether or not he was in the right, since that is their area of
Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” emphasizes the need for civil disobedience when faced with unjust laws. This idea contradicts Socrates’ claim made in Crito, that one must follow the law under all circumstances. In this paper, I will argue that Socrates is not a proponent of civil disobedience based on King’s definition of civil disobedience and Socrates’ charges. Moreover, I will argue that both Socrates and King disagree with one another based on the concept of civil disobedience—breaking the law and rejecting certain ideals.
The main idea of civil disobedience is that citizens have the right and the obligation to challenge the laws of the state when they feel that the laws opposes certain superior ideals. Martin Luther King Jr. and Socrates have different opinions towards civil disobedience and how they should react toward laws that are unfair. I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s tactic for civil disobedience just as I agree that steps must be taken to reform the laws that we find unjust. However, I do agree with Socrates on why we should follow the law but if no one ever challenged the laws then some old unjust laws would still be set in place today.
How does the social responsibility of intellectuals to demonstrate civil disobedience differ from Lincoln and MLK’s time and today as demonstrated by Black lives matter and Antifa
The United States of America was founded with the remarkable purpose of unifying a multitude of states-homes to citizens all of cultures and beliefs-whom shared a similar goal of creating a life of freedom and prosperity. In order to secure structure and solidity within an entire nation, it has always been extremely vital to maintain a regulatory government with a strong constitution to represent its citizens as a whole. However, the government can often represent the character of the American man in a way which misinterprets his very intentions. When morals and ethics are found to be void within our governmental institution, and it then becomes a “corporation without conscious”, civil disobedience can be the vital key in awakening human emotions
In the United States Constitution we the people were given a right to freedom of speech. People have taken to this right given to us by the Founding Fathers. But, one problem rises to the top with a right that has so much freedom, civil disobedience. It’s a topic that we are seeing more of in our society today. Civil disobedience is a threat against our free society due to people not taking our laws serious enough.
The relationship between government and citizen is one much contested throughout history. Which is best: oligarchy, anarchy, democracy, or autocracy? When considering America’s government, the Founding Fathers instituted a republic. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a republic. However, due to mankind’s selfish nature, policymakers will inevitably pass unjust legislation. Thus, a republic’s welfare does not rely on absolute obedience to just and unjust laws alike. Rather, it permits civil disobedience, defined as the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Some people, however, disagree, believing that civil disobedience does not allow for a stable society.
Subsequently, if a person or group decides that the law is unjust, then they must decide to react appropriately. However, in the case of where the unjust law that is trying to be undone will result in a greater injustice, the law should remain the same and the group or person must not act to try and change the law. Moving on, there is a vast difference between a group of people participating in civil disobedience, where a person or group breaks the law with the knowledge an acceptance of the consequence, and just sheer violence in response to an unjust law. The whole point of participating in a protest against an unjust law is to bring awareness and conversation about it and try and rectify the unjust law with a just one. Therefore, to involve one’s self with a violent unjust act against the unjust law you are trying to protest against out of spite and do not want to accept the consequences against the people that are enforcing this unjust law will result in a loss of legitimacy for your protest. Socrates puts it in a very simple way, “Nor must one, when wronged, inflict wrong in return” Socrates saying this gives a reason why he does not try to bribe his way out of prison. So, this is the difference between someone who is breaking the law on purpose who wants sincere change, and someone who is just retaliating out of anger of the unjust law. For this reason, it would be counterproductive to strike back with utter
In this regard, therefore, civil disobedience arises in a situation where a person or a group of individuals actively decline to obey the set laws and regulations and make it clear to the law enforcers that they can by no chance obey such laws. In philosophy, civil disobedience is explained as the failure to accept and follow the law and consequently acting in violation of the law. This essay discusses civil disobedience from two different perspectives as presented by famous philosophers; Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr (MLK).
Civil disobedience, or the act of peacefully resisting a law, has been a fundamental part of society for centuries. Henry David Thoreau in 1849 wrote in his essay, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” that if a law is unjust that one not only has the right to oppose the law, but that they are in fact obligated to break the law. In this light, peaceful resistance to laws not only positively impacts society, but is indeed crucial to maintaining a fair and just society. For without this resistance, citizens would go about their business simply accepting the oppression under which they live; resistance to unjust laws is the driving force behind positive change in society, which can be seen in resistance movements throughout history.
The immense raw emotion of protesters grasping the nation’s attention is sensational in the sense of the people’s spoken word of how the government interprets their way of living. The fact that the people of the nation are allowed to have freedom of speech is phenomenal. Civil disobedience has already had an impact on the 21st century in the first two decades with the Ferguson riots to the riots across the nation for the 45th president's election to office. During all these riots of civil disobedience, none truly got to the point of their purpose to the public. These examples provide that civil disobedience has a negative impact on society due to lack of respect to the public's eye on the issue, peaceful protests can turn violent, and property damage for cities to handle afterward.
“An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so.” Civil disobedience is the deliberate and public refusal to obey a law. People might say it doesn’t get the point quicker,but in reality it gets the point out quicker by no violence.Civil disobedience is effective because it gets the point out quicker with no violence and finally it causes a change in society. So is civil disobedience effective on changing society.
I think peaceful resistance to law positively or negatively impact free Society because it demonstrates that people are in their country to live for every name. Rosa Parks was an amazing example because she knew the long respected it but chose not to follow it when she sat in the front of the bus. Amazing Minds like Marther Luther King jr. Was also an amazing example that you can possibly save the things you want to say and he went to jail but he chose to continue to fight for what he believed in. Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau is an amazing piece of work it shows people that you can respect it but you don't have to follow it in every aspect. In the letter to Birmington Martin Luther King Jr. Demonstrates that he can possibly write
Throughout history, many figurative historical people have used civil disobedience to protest unjust rules such as, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi. They striked and protest obediently and won their case in a peaceful manner. Martin Luther King described the civil rights movement as a time when the “people moved their leaders, not the leaders who moved the people.” If enough of us push together toward a new vision, the world will begin to move. Looked what happened. He did make a difference because he spoke what he felt was right. He didn’t do anything violent whatsoever and he still made an impact because he spoke his
Over the course of the United States of America, citizens have had the gracious ability to fight for what they believe is right. Written into the First Amendment of the Constitution is the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition, granting citizens the right to fight for what they believe in. Some people do not realize the extent of how much more freedom America gives its citizens and how the right to even peacefully protest is a right that is sometimes taken for granted. Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society in that over the years it has given those who have stood for what they believe, the rights that they stood for.
Many people ask what civil disobedience is. Civil disobedience, or peaceful resistance, is the act of peacefully or nonviolently breaking a law that is viewed as unjust or unfair. In some people’s eyes, civil disobedience is a positive for society, but in other people’s eyes it is negative. In my eyes, civil disobedience is a positive for society for many reasons.