The Ethical Impact On Civil Disobedience

Libya is a country east of Egypt with just over 6,000,000 people. Libya’s first ruler was King Idris I, he was elected after World War II when the people were looking for a new leader. He was Libya's only King. He established embassies with many large countries such as the U.S. and also allowed U.S. military to come in to restore and maintain the rights of the Libyan people in his first decade as a king. After King Idris I died in 1969, Libya fell apart. A new ruler, Gaddafi, began destroying Libya and its government. In 1972 tensions increased so much between the American and Libyan governments the American ambassador was removed from the embassy in Tripoli. In 1979 all American embassy workers were removed after an attack. In 2011 the people

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

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.

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

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.

President Ronald Reagan has just ordered for all Libyan assets to be frozen. He wanted to be safe just in case Libya decided to seize the Americans. In the meantime, the U.S. was attempting to persuade the Europeans and other possible connection to Libya to the killing of nineteen individuals, five in which were

At the time of the attack, Libya was in a state of chaos and need for help. In 2011, a civil war in Libya was occurring. Numerous people were in an effort to overthrow the leader of Libya, Gaddafi. The people that were rebelling were militants who fought along Al-Qaeda, former members of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, and jihadists that fought in Iraq and Afghanistan. To help the men that were trying to coup d'état, the United States began to send weapons over, even though western counterterrorism officials worried that the weapons would later be used for future terrorist attacks. In addition to sending weapons, the United States deployed analysts from America’s Delta Forceware to teach the rebels about weapons and different tactics. After the end of the civil war, the US State Department, including US Ambassador Stevens, decided to stay in Libya. They remained in Libya to identify and collect arms used in war, to secure Libyan chemical weapon stockpiles, and to train Libya’s new intelligence service. Dozens of CIA operatives were in Libya at the time of the attack because they were monitoring a couple of suspected Al-Qaeda members.

The United States had a long history of disagreements with rulers in Libya, Before the land was even incorporated as a contiguous nation, the city of Tripoli sent pirates into the Mediterranean Sea to

Our nation was built on civil disobedience and it has always been a privilege we have held high. It is for this very reason why the First Amendment of our Constitution outlines the right to a peaceful protest among other rights most important to us. But over time, some members of our nation have lost sight of this liberty and see peaceful resistance as nothing more than groups of people who have no respect for the law. But civil disobedience is not doing whatever you want, whenever you want. Civil disobedience is actively protesting what is morally wrong and is the way to a more free and just society.

The United States history is filled with disobedience, it can be said that this very country was founded on acts of disobedience, except they weren't always so civil. If you can get across a point without endangering civilians does that make the argument less valid? Does the lack of bloodshed make the the cause less relevant. It is my belief that civil disobedience has been and will always be necessary, especially in this day in age with growing friction between the government and the governed. Acts of civil disobedience not only positively impacts the movement towards creating and maintaining a free society, but also reinforces

Another issue I have with the idea of civil disobedience is the fundamental understanding of America’s social contract. While Americans do have the right to protest according to the Constitution, the majority of the “peaceful” assemblies are not, well, peaceful (more on this later). On top of that, as US citizens, we conform to our social contract, which restricts certain liberties, but provides us the right to live in the United States instead of more corrupt places in the world -- Mexico, North Korea, and Syria come to mind.

The current U.S. President, Barack Obama, has continued this humanitarian and moral trend with the use of U.S. military force in Libya and Syria. However, both events are very much different in seeking the approval or consultation by Congress given their political context. In 2011, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, had come under the international spotlight as a major threat to the citizens of Libya. Given Libya’s location centered amongst several Arab states, there was much at stake for U.S. interest. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the United Nations also backed the U.S. and other NATO allies’ military

In society, we currently go through a lot of controversies that one could object to. One of the controversies that we face in society is how people with a certain viewpoint feel about non-violent protests (i.e. Civil Disobedience). Civil disobedience, a concept adopted from 1Thoreau Essay: Resistance from Civil Government published in 1849, defines this ‘’as the active, professed refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws of the state and/or demands, orders, and commands of a government, or of an occupying international power.’’ During this time, he wrote this essay because he believed that individuals should not let government officials take over their consciences. He also showed his hatred for slavery and the Mexican-American War (1846-1848) which motivated him to write this paper.

Army to Libya and the operation lasted more than 60 days. The main point is that in order to claim that the War Power Resolution is applicable to an operation, the Army should be introduced into hostilities. President Obama did not want to interfere with the enemy directly to sidestep the War Power Resolution in order to prevent any type of reaction by the Congress that might have prevented the “military assessment” for Libya. This was another sign of ineffectiveness of the War Power Resolution and another evidence that showed it interfered with military strategy. If we look at what happened in Libya, Muammar Gadhafi, the leader of the country, decided to kill all the citizens “house by house, room by room . . . [with] no mercy and no

Ban animal cruelty! Give aid to the poor! Save the rainforests! Obey the law! As a human race we must strive to fulfill these commands, for they are our moral duties and obligations. Our obligation to morality sometimes leads to a dilemma. What happens when a law contradicts the morally right thing to do? Would it be moral to act illegally by breaking the law? No matter how drastic the measure, we are still required to act morally--even if one must break the law to do so. But why is it so important to be moral that one could justify something as serious as breaking the law?