Sociological Perspective Of Civil Disobedience

The topic of civil disobedience is one that has been hotly contested in both theory and practice throughout much of recent history. The discourse within this essay will centre around the legitimacy of civilly disobedient actions and on whether it can be considered civil disobedience to partake in violent action against the state or the majority. This debate has been previously outlined by John Rawls and John Morreal, Rawls taking the side of strict non-violence and Morreal arguing that the definition of violence includes even Rawls’ supposed non-violent acts. This essay will have two parts: the first will give a summary of the argument between Rawls and Morreal, the second will be my argument for civil disobedient action in stages. I will

Have you ever felt a rule you had to follow was unjust? Have you ever felt your moral instinct tell you not to follow it? Prominent figures in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, felt this way and decided to not follow the rules imposed on them by indulging in “civil disobedience”. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying laws or customs with the purpose of combating moral injustice. This form of protest has proven to be quite effective in making change in history. In “Civil Disobedience” and the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, both Thoreau and King Jr. write their justification for their actions as well as their feelings regarding the particular disputed

University of Missouri football players band together in protest of Timothy Wolfe, the University of Missouri president. Black students were antagonized on campus, so students organized a walkout Monday, November 9, 2015 and the following Tuesday in protest of the university not doing anything. According to a New York Times article, “…dozens of black football players issued a blunt ultimatum: Resign or they won’t play” (Marc Tracy and Ashley Southall, Black Football Players Lend Heft to Protests at Missouri). A forfeited game would cost the university one million dollars, the article says. Also, at the homecoming parade, students blocked Mr. Wolfe’s car in order to speak to him when officials would

The infamous phrase “just following orders” is a symbol of what occurs when conscience is lost in the face of overwhelming state authority: it is a summation of all that can go wrong when man forfeits his conscience. As King wrote in Letter from a Birmingham Jail, “we can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was ‘legal’ and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal.’” But for every individual who cowers and forfeits his scruples is one who stands firm. King was one example, Thoreau another; and there are perhaps millions more, who violated the Fugitive Slave Act, who sheltered victims of government evil in their homes, who declared that they were people first, citizens second. Today, government overreach make civil disobedience as important as ever.

The world is full of people who put their self-interests first, making the world evil and unjust. Henry David Thoreau made a speech in 1848 responding to the government and its injustices. This speech and later essay would commonly be known as civil disobedience. Today, we find everybody living and following their own rules made for their own interest, participating in many immoral activities, and encouraging the rule of injustice. However, we can also find people, like Thoreau, trying to resist these injustices in order to stop evil practices and rules. In the essay “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau tries to make people aware by drawing attention towards the injustices of the early American government. He divides the essay into three parts: Government, responsibilities of citizens (response to the government) and the Government’s injustice. He makes it clear that going against the injustice and following ones conscious is not a crime; instead it’s a way to set ourselves free.

According to St. Augustine “an unjust law is not a law at all”(p186). This belief has been shared by many influential leaders in the past, including Henry Thoreau, Mahatma Ghandi, and Martin Luther King. They all believed in a non-violent approach to solving their social grievances. In most cases their approach was successful and was noticed by society and brought about a change in the laws. This nonviolent perspective stems straight from Jesus, who says, “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you.”(p192). Others believe that by being disobedient you are under minding the laws and thus creating chaos within society. But, if unjust laws

As a citizen, one often faces the moral dilemma of whether to abide by the laws they disagree or whether not to. The Crito, written by Plato, and Civil Disobedience, written by Henry David Thoreau, explain and defend their claims on what to do when one encounters this moral dilemma. The Crito argues that one should not break the laws because to break one law is to break all of the laws. Civil Disobedience argues that majorities should not determine whether to make the people of a society follow a law, but ones conscience should determine whether they should follow the laws. The Crito is correct in the fact that one should follow the laws because they are laws, and if broken, essentially all of them are broken; the laws are put in place to conduct society and one does not get to pick and choose which ones to follow and which ones not to.

At an early age, most children are taught to obey the law. However, many children are also told to follow their conscience. Certain incidents can cause these views to conflict. According to figures like Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela, breaking the law is justified when one’s conscience dictates him or her to do so if it is for justice, freedom, and it is non-violent.

Reading Henry David Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience (1849) I find a parallelism between his thoughts and the coming of age of the United States as a nation. This piece was originally delivered as a speech before the Concord Lyceum in January of 1848 on the subject "On the Relation of the Individual to the State", and published under the title Resistance to Civil Government in Elizabeth Peabody's Aesthetic Papers, in May 1849. Thoreau wrote it from a personal experience: in 1846 he had been imprisoned for not paying his taxes as a protest for the actions of the government because he opposed slavery and the Mexican War. This essay is part of the literary period called The

What is civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the opposing of a law one finds unjust by refusing to follow it and accepting the consequences. So many people have performed acts of civil disobedience from Martin Luther King Jr. to everyday people. But what people did as civil disobedience a hundred years ago is completely different today. It is such an important part of a free society because it helps to define what a free society is, shows the true meaning of freedom of speech, and shows the government that citizens are not willing to follow an unjust law without violence.

There is, this day, (this month, this year, these four) a new and strange definition of power. Mostly, it’s noise. By present standard conventions, those with authority are the ones who shout hardest into the Twittervoid, those whose revolutions are televised, with words brash first, truthful second. American youth has grown to understand the political arena as two separate echo chambers: places to yell, but not to listen. A discouraged majority refuse to voice moderate opinions, and in doing so, teach children that only the radical, cruel, and unyielding have meaning.

The productivity of a successfully ran country relies solely on the structure of the government laws and it’s polices. When the people are united and have an equal say in the ratifications of its countries constitutional legalities, less negative attention shall arise. Much as allowing the voice of each sound, mind, and body the opportunity to cast their votes upon chosen leaders and officials, projects fairness in the outcome of how a nation will be ran. However, if a people are subjected to laws or conditions that are unequal, it is imperative that some form of an outcry occurs. This places governmental officials within a huge dilemma. Ignoring the citizens of a state can cause internal friction. International media can

According to Wikipedia Civil disobedience is the active, professed refusal to obey certain laws, demands, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power. Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law, rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. I think it is an important aspect of democracy and a free society.

”Unjust law is no law at all.” In face of unjust laws, merely tolerance and obeying could be detrimental not only to personal rights but also to the well-being of the society. Therefore, it is indeed every people’s responsibility to disobey or even resist them. As we know during the sixties of America a number of citizens decided not to obey the law which itself is unjust and wrong any longer. Without their resistance, there wouldn’t have been the civil rights movement, anti-war

This class has provided me with a lot of useful information that I will be able to use in the future. This class has shown me how to adapt my skills to different populations. I became aware of how every individual experiences the world in completely different ways. This class gave me an insight on civil disobedience, sharing cultural backgrounds, skills to develop as a counselor and white privilege.