Pros And Cons Of Civil Disobedience

Civil Disobedience is something used in our country often. Civil disobedience has been controversial throughout the years. Some people think civil disobedience is harmful to our country but there are many reasons as to why it is beneficial. Civil disobedience is beneficial for many reasons including people’s voices will be heard, it unites people together, and people have a right to fight unfair laws. These reasons are found in supporting documents. It is clear that civil disobedience is beneficial to our country.

The  Civil Rights Movement is a substantial example of civil disobedience for the reason that  they were peacefully protesting while accepting their consequences.  On the other hand, people today believe that they're protesting peacefully however, peace can lead to violence and take away the credibility of their cause. Causing destruction in their community, where civil disobedience impacts society negatively because the situations get out of hand that cause chaotic cases which involves brutality.

Politics is not as the common person may define it. It is not dependent of any other doctrine or ideology; it is its

Fascinating as these two subjects may be when they intertwine, philosophy and politics are possibly the two most polarizing things in both academia and throughout society in general, from Karl Marx arguing the idea that all human beings are loyal to their respective socioeconomic classes in some way to Henry David Thoreau proposing that all people should be self-reliant and that society prospers when there is little to no state control. On the other hand, there are two opposing principles of ethics that still find themselves in heated debate among politicians and philosophers alike today, with these two principles being utilitarianism and Kantian ethics (otherwise known as “deontology”). Meanwhile, The Founding Fathers were also polarized on how to best govern the newly formed United States of America; eventually, they settled on the principles of freedom, democracy, and most interestingly, equality. Fast-forwarding to the year 2081 is a new dystopian United States characterized by physical equality in Kurt Vonnnegut, Jr.’s 1961 satirical short story, “Harrison Bergeron”.

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

Civilization has, from its genesis, been plagued with intolerable issues, ranging from racial discrimination to breaches of privacy. In the face of such issues has arisen the threat of violence countless times over. However, as we’ve progressed as a race, we have moved from violence and have resorted instead to civil disobedience, a peaceful form of protest in which one refuses to comply with the law and accepts all consequences. A practitioner of civil disobedience is one who will state their cause openly, commit their “crime” peacefully, and go to jail for it in protest. Civil disobedience is inherently good because it holds government accountable for its wrongdoings, calls attention to injustices civilians may not even know about, and expresses

When done correctly, civil disobedience can have positive effects on society, and in a time where people’s basic human rights are being put up for debate by the government, more people should practice civil disobedience. The main argument against civil disobedience is that it is inefficient, but by looking at history, it is apparent that it has marked significant social change on society. For instance, when Rosa Parks took a front bus seat during the Civil Right’s movement, she prompted African Americans to boycott the bus system. Her act of civil disobedience led to increased non-violent participation in the Civil Right’s movement. It is true that some acts of civil disobedience would be harmful to society.

In his essay, Definition and Justification of Civil Disobedience, John Rawls defines civil disobedience as, “…a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.” Rawls argues that civil disobedience can only be justified within a society that is generally just. The reason for this limitation is that Rawls views civil disobedience as an act of communication between an oppressed minority and an oppressive, but likely not purposefully oppressive, majority. In a generally just society, the majority will be rational enough to listen to the protest of the minority and will recognize the inconsistencies of their actions

Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws, which may appear morally wrong. However, John Rawls created an argument stating how an act of civil disobedience can be morally justified, only if falling under his four conditions. Rawls argument is compelling, and in this paper I will prove why his reasoning is justifiable, and how Martin Luther King Jr. corroborated with Rawls theory. John Rawls begins by stating how his argument applies only to constitutional democracies, which derived from the social contract theory. Thus causing the basis of our political theory to be established on a majority rule.

Civil disobedience has been a prevalent topic of debate within the United States and all around the world for centuries. Civil disobedience, by definition, is a form of peaceful protest where the protesters refuse to abide by a certain law or do not agree with a certain tax. This is an extremely positive aspect of the government for the United States and is essential towards preserving the intents of the framers. The refusal to allow peaceful forms of protest would be silencing the first amendment rights towards freedom of speech and expression. But, while this form of protest is extremely positive and necessary, it is not always effective. There are some cases where the protest goes unnoticed because there are not being extreme actions

To demonstrate how these views fit in with the respective authors, I will examine their interpretations from different political philosophers and show how certain behaviors and ideas can be attributed to elements from both theories.

Mahatma Gandhi once said, ”Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless of corrupt.” Civil disobedience is the refusal of following certain laws nonviolently for the purpose of a cause. Techniques such as boycotting, picketing, and not paying taxes are examples of civil disobedience. A hotly debated topic in today’s world is whether civil disobedience is effective or not. Even though some may say that civil disobedience is ineffective for many reasons, there are more given reasons for why civil disobedience is effective. I believe civil disobedience is an effective way to change unjust laws and/or make social change because it has the power to cause real change in society, law, and the government, it is a way to

When civil disobedience takes place among a person or group of people, a statement is trying to be made. There is a reason why these people are disobeying specific laws that were meant to protect them. They are trying to give their government a reality check on what is actually happening in their country. When government officials are elected or chosen and have power, they can easily abuse this power and become blinded by the realities that take place within their country. In an interview, Martin Luther King Jr. once said “I don’t think any society can call an individual irresponsible who breaks the law and willingly accepts the penalty” (Martin Luther King Jr. Speech). Dr. King explains how when people break

In a realist world, states have “supreme power” over its territory and population, there is an absence of a higher authority. The fact that there is no higher authority has its consequences. States become self-interested, they compete for power and security. It can lead states to continuously struggle for power “where the strong dominate the weak (Kegley, 28).” This ultimately creates a system in which each state is responsible for its own survival, making them cautious towards their neighboring states. In addition, a realist world is a self-help system; “political leaders seek to enhance national security” by building armies and forming alliances (Kegley, 28). Economic and military power are key components to a state sovereignty and to national security.