Elements Of Civil Disobedience

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.

“If you make laws to keep us suppressed in a wrongful manner and without taking us into confidence, these laws will merely adorn the statue books. We will never obey them”(1). Mohandas Gandhi expressed this in his writing “On Nonviolent Resistance”. “Civil disobedience” is when people use their voice by protesting, non-violently, to stick up against unjust laws and unjust movements. The truths and values are proven and brought to attention in the writings of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Henry David Thoreau. Civil disobedience can be the solution to unjust laws and violence around the world.

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”.

When your human rights are being stripped, it is a great way to change society, as we see in Gandhi’s peaceful revolt. However, in many cases it is not necessary. It would do even more damage, especially if there are other, safer and more human ways for addressing concerns. Laws would be threatened as well as American infrastructure and economy. Through this, civil disobedience requires us to examine the situation. It requires intelligent people to sacrifice something for the greater good, and when it is necessary. The people thinking about disobeying must ask the question “is the law I am being pushed under unjust?” before performing the act. As Gandhi once said “An unjust law is itself a species of violence. Arrest for its breach is more so. Now the law of nonviolence says that violence should be resisted not by counter-violence but by nonviolence. This I do by breaking the law and by peacefully submitting to arrest and

From Cherokee Indians refusing to abandon their homes in 1838 to the Sit-ins of the civil rIghts movement in the early 1960s, people have been using acts of civil disobedience to stand against injustice they saw in their communities. Although there are many examples of people abusing this benefit and causing more grief and shame than progress, many have used it to their advantage to bring about positive change for the greater good of society, therefore acts of civil disobedience can positively impact a free society if they remain peaceful, respectful, and justified.

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

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

From the time we are children and throughout the duration of our lives, we are told to abide by certain sets of rules. In most situations this is a perfectly acceptable expectation; speed limits, remaining quiet in libraries, and waiting until the age of twenty-one to drink are all reasonable things to ask of people. After all, these rules and laws are put in place to ensure a peaceful and safe society. However, when these rules begin to infringe upon the rights of certain groups, some citizens turn to civil disobedience as a form of protest. While some may argue that civil disobedience is nothing more than a violation of the law, it has also proven to have a positive impact on society, in more ways than one. Used by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin

The accepted legal doctrine considers that someone commits an act of civil disobedience "if and only if it acts illegally, publicly, without violence and knowingly, with intent to thwart the law, policy or decisions of a government." This definition is consistent with the doctrine set forth by the American John Rawls in his Theory of Justice. Civil disobedience is different from other explicitly nonviolent actions legitimate forms of resistance in character.

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

Furthermore, a person who acts with civil disobedience means, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “One who breaks an unjust law… openly, lovingly…, and with a willingness to accept the penalty”. In other words, civil disobedience is respectfully breaking a law that is disagreed with, and then openly accepting the consequence. During the world’s history,

When and how can someone justify the actions of civil disobedience? If everyone can disobey the law when they think it is necessary, what guaranties the public order? Shouldn’t there exist a moral obligation of following the law? Discussions about civil disobedience have approached these and other questions.

Civil disobedience isn’t uncommon in America, but the modern idea of civil disobedience has become flawed and distorted from its original intent. Currently, there are thousands of causes and ideals that are spastically flung around and just as soon forgotten. This is because the guise of civil disobedience is often abused by people simply to attract publicity. These methods of claimed civil disobedience often do little to nothing in working towards the goal that they claim to stand for, or their intensions are vague and unclear. For example, in the news, the most popular recent controversial example of civil disobedience is the kneeling during the national anthem before a football game. At its manifestation, this movement was intended to protest the inequalities in the treatment of races by the police especially in Chicago. This effectively accomplished nothing. It raised awareness but the majority of intelligent civilians were already aware of the inequalities. The flaw of this example is that the form of disobedience

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

Civil disobedience is tantamount to raising the red signal against democracy when the latter deviates from the right course in accordance with the views of exponents. It can be considered as a kind of opposition or rather a very advanced shape of political and social resistance. Civil disobedience is not a commonplace form of political opposition, not because it is a negative form of political resistance, but because it occurs very rarely. It can be regarded as the most sophisticated case of the embodiment of democracy. Therefore, it is difficult if not impossible to imagine a democracy without the freedom of opposition including the right of civil disobedience. Freedom of