Disobedience In Democracy

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

Civil disobedience has always been a popular way to refute an idea in society. The most famous person that encouraged civil disobedience was Mohandas Gandhi. Gandhi was famous for encouraging this behavior stating that “an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” Gandhi was a perfect example of how to deal with a life threatening problem in society: Oppose your unfair leaders with peace; simply disobey them, because in order for them to be “leaders” they need society. In order for them to be “leaders” they need a society that cooperates. If you take this away from unfair leaders, then they will crumble. The basic ideology behind civil disobedience that many get wrong is that there is a mutual relationship between political leaders

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.

Throughout history protesters have said that civil disobience is the peaceful resistance of conscience. Civil disobedience was once the route to the democratic ways of our founding fathers of the United States of America. Van Dusen views civil disobedience as a physical attack to our democracy. I believe civil disobience is a negative force in our democracy that may lead to the destruction of our government because laws are disobeyed, causing new laws to come to order that follow the protester’s actions. I too have completed acts of civil disobedience, and I think my actions contribute to the negative force in a democracy. Civil disobedience began as a revolution for many rebels but eventually allowed ordinary citizens to damage the government

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

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.

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.

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

civil disobedience – refusal to follow laws as a way to form a peaceful political protest in order for change satyagraha – the Hindu term for the practice of nonviolent resistance, as advocated by Mohandas Gandhi; “hold fast to the truth” partition – the action of dividing a country by separating different areas of the government 1. Why were colonial elites just as likely to support imperialism as oppose it? Colonial elites were just as likely to support imperialism as to oppose it due to their Western education and lifestyle. These Western influences led them to be influenced by the belief that they needed to adopt some aspects of Westernization in order to form a successful independence.

In addition, civil disobedience is morally permissible is one where there is a limited number of unjust laws which are the focus of opposition, but where there is a fundamentally just set of principles against which those laws can be deemed to be unjust. (Solitary Purdah). To question if civil disobedience can be justified, than we must remember what Abraham Lincoln once said, “Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violate in the least particular the laws of the country. 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. We need to understand that the law is there for a reason.

“Arguments Against Civil Disobedience” says that it “implies contempt for the law” (131). The articles goes on to explain that the acts clearly demonstrate a complete disregard for the law and thus disregard that they live in a “law-governed community” (131). In America, at least, where it is a democracy based on the clear understanding that the citizens vote for the law makers and the majority vote wins, it becomes uncertain whether or not the people protesting are protesting the way a democracy works and if their bigger aim is to the undermine the democracy and make it a

Civil disobedience is a form of political participation because it is a way make others see that change is wanted. In the Constitution it says “the right of the people peaceably to assemble”. The Constitution gives the people the right to protest, assemble peacefully, to oppose a law, and to criticize a law. Civil disobedience is the best way to show that you don’t agree with a law, government, or there is something you would like to protest.

Civil disobedience encompasses the refusal to obey governmental laws or orders. This concept that is well known in the context of South African history. There are many examples present throughout history, especially in the new constitutional era, such as fees must fall. In this essay I will consider this concept of civil disobedience, especially in a South African context as well as considering a quote by Jurgen Habermas in an article by William Smith titled Civil Disobedience and Deliberative Democracy. Io will also look at philosophical theories such as liberalism and feminism in relation to the above move mentioned extract.

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

Before embarking on this thorny issue, it should be noted that the legitimacy of civil disobedience in democratic states is a relative issue. It is subject to the criteria and considerations of schools of thought and politics. In other words, civil disobedience is permissible according to its advocates, regardless of its legal or constitutional status. While it is illegitimate and violates the law, and causes chaos and instability according to critics and opponents of the idea of civil disobedience.