The Two Concepts Of Civil Disobedience

In the modern age of America, there are many people who have read and abided by the beliefs of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a philosophy created by Henry Thoreau that states one must not conform to certain laws for a variety of reasons, which was also an ideology utilized by Martin Luther King Jr. The world has witnessed many acts of disobedience from the masses, and have thus portrayed the idea that this belief still operates successfully. The ideology that surrounds civil disobedience also strongly influences the individual in a particular society, which also depicts the principles of this belief have adjusted to the modern world. In the new age of America, the beliefs of Thoreau and King are still prevalent and found in society due to the influence it has on movement that brings change; thus, illustrating that American citizens commonly refer and utilize this belief.

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

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

According to my text book, civil disobedience is the voluntarily breaking established laws based on one’s moral belief. I strongly believe that civil disobedience is never justified, regardless of the situation. Yes, something might be wrong according to your morals, but laws are in place to prevent chaos. All these events mentioned; war protesters, anti-abortion activist, Civil Rights Movement, Black Lives Matter Movement, Charlottesville, Confederate statues, so on and so forth has created chaos throughout the United States.

Civil Disobedience is classified as the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. This idea was brought into focus in the essay “Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience)” by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau’s opinion on the subject was that the government was involved in everyone’s business, trying to make the country better yet they had the opposite effect. His opinion was that there is a need to prioritize one’s conscious over the dictates of law. Though there are many things that Thoreau touches on, the three main issues that he discussed were The Mexican war, slavery, and the taxes that he was protesting against.

America was founded on a principle of civil disobedience. With the signing of the Declaration of Independence, the Founding Fathers set forth a powerful precedent. The Declaration said in part, that when institutions of government becomes destructive or abusive of unalienable rights, it is the right of the people to alter it or to abolish it. The history of our nation tells us that civil disobedience is a civic responsibility, and in the alleged words of Thomas Jefferson, “Dissent is the highest form of patriotism”. From the Boston Tea Party to the Stonewall Riots, the United States Constitution and advances in racial, social, and gender equality support the idea that peaceful resistance positively contributes to a freer society, and a more equitable America.

Though frustration comes to people when feeling as though they are personally attacked by the disobedience of our own nation, our own government, it is still obvious to me that in order to grow as a country, we must change. Therefore, readdressing laws in a civil matter does positively impact a free society. Even with my most recent debate, I found myself certain that the government had a reason for doing what they did. And more than that, they have authority to have done so through the courts as well. I ask myself, if we had followed the same laws (without change), where would this country be today? Protest, debates, and resistance of many kinds have led this country to where we are now, and I myself feel certain that we are still a free

Thomas Jefferson clearly stated in the Declaration of Independence, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Exactly what Jefferson meant by Liberty in this statement was unclear and has been subject of great debate over the years. There is further examination of the use of the word Liberty in the U.S. Constitution. It was stated in Amendment I, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.” Therefore, by Constitutional law, it is legal to exercise ones right of peaceful civil disobedience. I believe peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts a free society. This is due to the fact that it exercises the rights we are given in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. Two documents that run, support, and are the foundation or our nation.

Secondly as a government and as those in power there should be better ways to deal with a problem then having to resort to violence. When a problem is not dealt with correctly as in the cases of this protest. Then this civil disobedience does us no good. It separates us as a country and pits the government vs. its people. This is not the way our forefathers intended it to be. Civil disobedience was created and by definition is supposed to be a civil way to go against the law peacefully. Ultimately the problem with civil disobedience is that it falls between the categories of legal protests and forcible, revolutionary resistance. It's a lot like dealing with babies. Sometimes the only way a baby (the people protesting) can communicate what it wants is by kicking, screaming, and crying. In this process however, the adult (the government) gets upset and yells and disciplines the child unnecessarily when all the child was trying to do is communicate that it wanted something else. It boils down to communication and until the correct form of communication between the government and the people is found civil disobedience won't be

And to an extent I agree, civil disobedience should be seen as a last resort. But in certain circumstances it is the only way to effectively promote change. The goal of civil disobedience it to spread your message to all. And the fact of the matter is the majority doesn't care about a peaceful protest in a public park by a minority population. But what will catch the majorities eye is people being carted off to prison for expressing their opinions. Those who practice civil disobedience intend to be a martyr. White people in the north didn't care about discrimination until they saw Rosa parks, a harmless woman, taken to prison just because she refused to give up her seat. That's a lot more effective than holding a sign or standing in a protest. Peacefully resisting laws is an extremely positive way to enact reform. In invokes change in a way that legal protest can't hope

Throughout history, many figurative historical people have used civil disobedience to protest unjust rules such as, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi. They striked and protest obediently and won their case in a peaceful manner. Martin Luther King described the civil rights movement as a time when the “people moved their leaders, not the leaders who moved the people.” If enough of us push together toward a new vision, the world will begin to move. Looked what happened. He did make a difference because he spoke what he felt was right. He didn’t do anything violent whatsoever and he still made an impact because he spoke his

“Arguments Against Civil Disobedience” says that it “implies contempt for the law” (131). The articles goes on to explain that the acts clearly demonstrate a complete disregard for the law and thus disregard that they live in a “law-governed community” (131). In America, at least, where it is a democracy based on the clear understanding that the citizens vote for the law makers and the majority vote wins, it becomes uncertain whether or not the people protesting are protesting the way a democracy works and if their bigger aim is to the undermine the democracy and make it a

In an article written by Morris I. Leibman that agrees with this claim, Leibman states that “no society whether free or tyrannical can give its citizens the ‘right’ to break the law.” Although it is right that the government does not give us the authority to break laws, the breaking of laws is not all of what civil disobedience is. Civil disobedience is not a disregarding of the law; rather, the attentiveness to the flaws of an unjust law. One cannot break laws that are just, such as laws against stealing, and claim that they are committing an act of civil disobedience. Evidence that shows how our laws have been changed because of civil disobedience is in the events such as the Boston Tea Party, Women’s Suffrage Movement, The Anti-War Movements, Abolition of slavery in the U.S., The Civil Rights Movement, and many others.

After reading “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, I believe that this historic piece of literature can still have a substantial impact upon the current beliefs of the American people. The reason that this essay has such significance to America is because this essay addresses the proper way to go about civil disobedience in addition to providing education about the nature of civil disobedience. I believe the most significant message that this essay could teach Americans is expressed in this quote, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” This quote expresses the need to not just believe in a cause but to actively support it. This is in contrast to a wide spread phenomenon called false activism that is prominent in society. We all know someone who is, and for the most part all of us are guilty of seeing a cause online, claiming to support it, and then not doing a single thing to progress the cause. For example, most everyone you talk to would claim to strongly support more environmentally friendly methods of gathering energy yet the majority of us have not done anything to progress the cause of green energy.

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