The Importance 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.

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 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

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

Civil disobedience is a belief that is practiced in which the people disobey the law in a peaceful manner because it does not come to an agreement with their moral values. Over the years this idea of challenging the government has developed into a duty for the people. This concept is explained in the piece “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. They both express acts of passive resistance in which the impact is still felt in the modern world. Although, these ideologies were used in Thoreau and King’s time, they need to be updated to fit in today’s world.

The act of violating the laws and authority of the state is justified only when the measures taken by the state are contrary to the morals, ethics, and public opinion of the governed. On the occasion that truly “unjust” rule is forced upon a citizenry, violating that authority can be validated. The factors which contribute to an unjust governance are the states’ adherence to common morality, the power structure of the government, how closely it follows the public will, and the ethical consideration taken by the power. Civil disobedience, however, must be exercised cautiously and with extreme restraint, because if the private individual has the power to neglect the law due to personal interest, the society will deteriorate into chaos. Although Sophocles’ Antigone and Plato’s Crito do not exhibit a shared interpretation of when it is justified to disobey the state, considering both pieces will strengthen an understanding of when it is appropriate to practice a degree of law breaking.

Peaceful resistance to a law is exactly what a free society needs in order to manage the "free" status. If we were forced to obey every law without a say, we would not be a truly free society. Civil disobedience is one of the most positive impacts the people can have on their own government, especially one that claims to be one of the people, for the people, and by the people. When the people disagree with a law they have always and will always have a right to stand against it. It is a vital part of an American's first amendment rights: the freedom of speech (among other things).

A man once said, “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. ” And in order to make any necessary changes to the unjust law, you must use civil disobedience. Due to the fact that civil disobedience might be the only way one can express how one feels about the situation, while gathering public’s approval, in order to make the adjustments. As first demonstrated in Sophocles’ Antigone, the concept of civil disobedience can be defined as defying a law that is unjust with one’s morals. Along with evidence from a variety of other sources on civil disobedience, such as The Little Prince by Antoine de Saint Exupery, Analysis of Plato’s Crito on Sparknotes, BBC News’ Ukraine marks Orange Revolution, and David Thoreau’s

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

Civil disobedience is not a new development of politics; though it’s gained traction in the past couple centuries, it appears as far back as biblical times. In the book of Acts, Peter proclaims that apostles must follow God’s law before man’s law (Acts 5:29). The idea that some holy morality must come before human law appears also in Sophocles’ Antigone, in which the character of Antigone defies the King out of familial duty. While civil disobedience has morphed in practice over time, its base principles have remained the same. Civil disobedience requires that a law must be seen as unjust, and that those who act in opposition to it must be aware of and assent to any punishment that occurs in retaliation.

Civil disobedience is the refusal to act and comply with the current government in protest and opposition to an act. Thoreau states in Civil Disobedience that he is willing to obey those that “can do better than I” and states that he accepts the motto “That government is best that governs least” (196, 177 Thoreau). In this lies a paradox of how much and how far the government should be in control of people lives and when should citizens step in to assert a communal moral law to the government. Moral law is the unique ethics and rulebook that each person learns from society. On the other hand, civil law is the set of laws that the government sets down. As a result of the uniqueness of moral laws to each individual person, then by nature civil

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