Importance Of Civil Disobedience In A Democracy

From the start of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has consistently been whether a person can wage a battle using words rather than actions. The notion of civil disobedience would seem to be an inept weapon against political inequity; history, however, has persistently proven it to be the most dynamic weapon of the individual. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated this very defiance. Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government conveys the effectiveness of the individual conscience, renounces hypocrisy, and cultivates a sense of urgency where inaction creates a moral conflict. This path of responsibility paved by Thoreau gave our leaders of today the means they

Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey the demands or certain laws of a government/ occupying power. Without resorting to violence or active events of conflict, it is typically used in the form of a peaceful protest. Civil disobedience has been seen in historical context as a main approach and philosophy of nationalist movements in Africa, India, and also in the American civil rights movement. It can also be a useful tactic in labor, anti-war, and other social movements occurring in numerous countries around the world. In both Sophocles’ Antigone and Martin Luther King, Jr.’s Letter from a Birmingham Jail, the author describes two very different displays of civil disobedience. Antigone disobeyed “man’s law” and buried her brother. Martin Luther King, Jr., on the other hand, fought to change the law for the rights of a large group of people. For this reason, Martin Luther King, Jr.’s efforts were more admirable than the efforts of Antigone.

The American duty requires to use voices, symbols, strength, and intelligence to unite and prosper against an unjust authority. Recently, different organizations continue to express their wants and changes to the government through peaceful protests. Civil disobedience strives to develop in America, however improvement continues to happen. The advantageous duty conveys civil disobedience. With Henry David Thoreau’s pivoting piece about individualism and protesting, Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter towards equal rights and rebellion, the developing civil disobedience continues to fulfill the American society.

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.

From the monarchs of the ancient era to the democracy of today, order has been maintained by means of rules and regulations known as laws. Compliance with these laws is enforced through punishments ranging in severity according to the crimes committed to reduce violence and misconduct from individuals within a society. However, just as citizens consent to abide by the laws of the state in which they reside, one is compelled to preserve justice and condemn the unjust decisions of man when the social contract contradicts the laws sanctioned by God. Approaching this conflict between natural and manmade laws in a non-violent manner is called “civil disobedience”.

Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, in “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” respectively, both conjure a definitive argument on the rights of insubordination during specified epochs of societal injustice. Thoreau, in his enduring contemplation of life and its purpose, insightfully analyzes the conflicting relationship between the government and the people it governs. He considerately evokes the notion that the majority of people are restrained by the government and society from making decisions with consideration of their conscience and that people need to overcome the reign of the government to realize their own

There are many civil disobedient that have shown impatience with the process of democracy. The Bill of Rights provides many opportunities for demonstrations to stimulate sentiment, to dramatize issues, and to cause change. These rights are subject to limitations of time and place so as to secure the rights of others. Also, the demonstrations must not be disguised as a right because it defeats its purpose. As the civil disobedient violates a law, and voluntarily submits to its sanctions, he breaches the law but not the peace. To indulge civil disobedience is to bring on anarchy, and the permissive arbitrariness of anarchy is less tolerable than the repressive arbitrariness of tyranny. Too often the license of liberty is followed by the loss of liberty. The disobedient act of conscience doesn’t enhance democracy; it gradually destroys democracy. The non-violent acts of disobedience will give rise to more civil riot. Van Dusen said, even the noblest act of civil disobedience assaults the rule of law. Although limited to method, motive and objective, it has the effect of inducing others to engage in different forms of law breaking characterized by methods unsanctioned and condemned by classic theories of law violation. Once the civil disobedient disobeys one law, he repeatedly subverts all

Civil Disobedience makes governments more accountable for their actions and has been an important catalyst for overcoming unpopular government policies. To voice his disgust with slavery, in 1849 Henry David Thoreau published his essay, Civil Disobedience, arguing that citizens must not allow their government to override their principles and have a civic duty to prevent their government from using unjust means to ends. The basis for Thoreau’s monumental essay was his refusal to pay a poll tax, which subsequently landed him a night in county jail. In his passage: “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth—certainly the machine will wear

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.

Civil Disobedience is the peaceful act of protesting a law between the civilians and government. Henry Thoreau explains it like this "… honest men to rebel and revolutionize" (page 392). In civil disobedience by Henry Thoreau he is explaining how the government of his time is abusing its power and people and how the people should do as he did and be a civil disobedient when the laws and government are unjust and go against a man's conscience. Thoreau wants the readers to peacefully protest the laws they feel are unjust, be aware of his own conscience, not be a puppet of the government, and not support anything that is of wrong-doing. He tells the readers to act and not just stand by passively or at least stop supporting what they feel is wrong, and I do believe he presents an effective argument for his point, and as accordingly it appeals to the common man.

Civil disobedience spawns a major and widely debated issue by many who established by well-known intelligent scholars and many examples of civil disobedience become displayed. The acts of civil disobedience can be noted in major works such as Sophocles?s Antigone, King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail?, or even from Plato?s ?from Crito?. A specific claim exemplified throughout these works make that civil disobedience races in gaining popularity and should remain allowed, and continued to be seen as a solution to reform poorly established laws. A claim represented is, civil disobedience is right. Rhetorically, appeals such

Henry David Thoreau's "Civil Disobedience" is an essay that attempts to persuade readers to oppose unjust government policies in general and the Mexican War and the institution of slavery in particular. Thoreau's argument seem anti-democratic on their face, particularly his disregard for majority opinion as expressed through elected representatives. But Thoreau reveals himself to be far more nuanced over the course of the essay. His fundamental respect for democracy and the Constitution coexists with a pervasive doubt about the integrity of politicians and the voting process, which significantly limits the ability of ordinary citizens to express their will in the first place.

Unjust governments have been a part of everyone's lives. Henry David Thoreau, Mohandas Gandhi, and Martin Luther King Jr. have all written about the unjust governments at that time. Of these texts, ‘Civil Disobedience’ by Thoreau contains the most effective argument. One aspect of Thoreau’s argument that makes ‘Civil Disobedience’ the most convincing text is because the way Thoreau explains his situation, he uses facts and feelings to get his point across. Similarly, Thoreau uses rhetoric to strengthen his argument in favor of civil disobedience in the face of unjust government. Thoreau's ‘Civil Disobedience’ expresses the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws.

Henry David Thoreau was an American writer and protester, who wrote the influential essay “Civil Disobedience”. In his essay, he advocates for citizens to protest against government actions that they deem unjust and to stand up for one’s rights, putting morals before law,

The question whether or not civil disobedience is justifiable in a democracy has been a controversial matter among thinkers and politicians. Views vary from almost absolute support to the legitimacy of civil disobedience in democratic societies to conservative support and to the rejection of the idea.