Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
The law of civil disobedience
The law of civil disobedience
The case against civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The law of civil disobedience
The law of civil disobedience
The case against civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Throughout history, people had many views of how the US government should be followed or not. We had Samuel Adams who supported that inhabitants must follow the government and people like Thomas Paine and Henry David Thoreau who supported that the government must follow the people. Civil disobedience also comes to mind when defying the government. People question if it 's safe or not or whether it is allowed because of the consequences. These three historical figures each has a different perspective how the government should be handled.
was very effective by making speeches and staging protests, this type of civil disobedience is outdated for the 21st century. With the introduction of technology our words can reach millions of people with the click of a button. Many groups have surfaced who use technology for the use of solving social injustices. For example a group called Anonymous have staged many hacks on government and large corporate websites. In an article of the New Yorker David Kushner states, “... many anons consider themselves crusaders for justice,”(kushner).
The war was extensively supported in the southern states but opposed in the northern states. This division largely developed from expectations of how the expansion of the United States would affect the issue of slavery. At the time, Texas recognized the institution of slavery, but Mexico did not. Many Northern abolitionists viewed the war as an attempt by the slave-owners to expand slavery and secure their continued influence in the federal government. Henry David Thoreau wrote his essay Civil Disobedience and refused to pay taxes because of this war.
Should the law be a higher priority than one’s own morals? Henry David Thoreau, a well-known American Transcendentalist, once wrote that “the government itself, which is the only mode which people have chosen to execute their will is equally liable to be abused and perverted before people can act through it” (A1). After witnessing many unjust and immoral activities, such as slavery and the Mexican-American war (something he viewed as unnecessary violence fueled by avarice for land), Thoreau lost faith in the government. In order for people to avoid becoming “agents of injustice” themselves, he encouraged them to act according to their conscience rather than blindly following the law. Although I believe that in an ideal world people should
John Snowden travelled to Hong Kong and released secrets that the NSA had been holding from the American public. Ranging from details that concern phone sweeps and the NSA's ability to do so to the techniques used by NSA hackers, Snowden revealed information that some say violates the Constitution. When this man traveled to a different continent to reveal this information, he had already accepted the fate of what would happen. This is a very useful example when explaining civil disobedience. Snowden knew that he would have to face the consequences due to his actions but that did not stop him from doing what was right for himself and his country.
People's justification to engage in civil disobedience rests on the unresponsiveness that their engagement to oppose an unjust law receives. People who yearn for a change in a policy might sometimes find themselves in a dead end because their “attempts to have the laws repealed have been ignored and legal protests and demonstrations have had no success” (Rawls 373). What Rawls says is that civil disobedience is a last option to oppose an unjust law; therefore, providing civil disobedients with a justification for their cause. Civil disobedience is the spark of light that people encountered at the dead end and they hope that this spark of light will illuminate to show that an unjust law should not exist at all. Martin Luther King, Jr, in his “Letter from
The formal definition of civil disobedience is any act or process of public defiance of a law or policy enforced by established governmental authorities. The term disobedient generally means to defy, or for the "normal" to be disobeyed. The term "normal" from one person to the next may be different. I believe that Freedom of Speech intervenes to a point. When a law is set, it is understandable that that law must be obeyed.
"A nation which does not remember what it was yesterday, does not know what it is today, nor what it is trying to do. We are trying to do a futile thing if we do not know where we came from or what we have been about." (Leibman1) I find this quote from Woodrow Wilson captivating because of our recent election between Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump, they both want to run our country but neither have truly shown what they will do to make there plans for our country are, they just show us how good they are at persuading the people to pick them based off of the way they present themselves. The people today have lost there true meaning of civil freedom, they thing that the United States should change the bathroom labels because those individuals decided to change there physical characteristics. We should thrive or help others be further educated on the idea of Civil Disobedience.
From Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat on a Montgomery bus to Edward Snowden leaking classified information about government surveillance programs, civil disobedience can take many forms. 20th-century American philosopher John Rawls defined civil disobedience as a “public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies” (Galaski). The term was originally coined by, Henry David Thoreau in his 1849 essay, “Resistance to Civil Government” (Brownlee, Kimberley). Some of the most common forms of civil disobedience include leaking sensitive documents, unauthorized demonstrations, sit-ins and roadblocks, and occupation (Galaski). Both Moral Courage and Intelligent
Some people might think of destruction or immorality when the words “civil disobedience” come up, but in reality, it’s quite the opposite. Many times in the past, civil disobedience has lead to social reform and building up a better future. It’s a form of resistance that commonly centers on a person’s morals as it’s basis. It’s a powerful tool in protests that has been used many times in the past and continues to be utilized today. Civil disobedience and breaking the law to some extent go hand in hand, which brings up the question, is it justifiable?
Civil disobedience is a way for people to express themselves on issues that are problematic to society in a peaceful matter. In developed countries like the United States, people have the freedom and a right to be civil disobedience and do so for a better change. Some may see it as a disrespectful way to disrupt the peace and in many communities. It is a dispute between it being right or wrong. Some feel like the power is being taken away from them and they need to do something about it but not cause a scene or disrupt anyone in any way, I believe people have the right to do this because I don't see the problem in someone speaking up something wrong.
If you asked me a few weeks ago what I thought about civil disobedience and what actions are forms of civil disobedience I would have answered with very simple responses, such as marching, protestings, etc. But as I’ve begun to learn more about different forms of civil disobedience and developed a nuanced understanding of these said actions I can say that my beliefs and understanding has changed. The texts that I have read over the past week have provided me with insight that has vastly changed my conceptions and knowledge on what civil disobedience is and how it is practiced. My conceptions of civil disobedience were originally fairly shallow as I briefly stated.
And, indeed, at all times there were people who tried to peaceful, non-violent way to resist state violence. American philosopher Ronald Dworkin identified three types of civil disobedience - «Integrity-based» («Based on honesty") - in which people refuse to obey the laws that they considered immoral (because, for example, Tolstoy protested against the death penalty and military service) « Justice -based» («Based on justice" - in which people are fighting against the law, which in their view does not correspond to justice, constitution, etc. (for example, civil society activists in the United States in 50-60s fought against the laws of Southern states, do not conform to federal decisions), and finally, «Policy-based» («Based on the policy"),
"If a law is unjust a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so. " With the possible permission of the founding father Thomas Jefferson, it seems only logical to conclude that our founders had a favorable liking to civil disobedience. It is a fundamental right granted to every American citizen whether they be Jus sanguinis (citizens of the blood) or Jus soli (citizens of the soil) outlined in the first amendment of the United States Bill of Rights, "... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " If so outlined in our "Supreme law of the land", can we not thus argue that civil disobedience is a positive right afforded to society.
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world” These astonishing words that Mahatma Gandhi said made me suppose that Civil Disobedience is a Moral Responsibility of a citizen because when breaking certain laws, a citizen perhaps incorporate a good intention or a bad intention for breaking it. Citizens break the law occasionally to have their beliefs be heard so change can be assemble. Some ways that Civil Disobedience can be a Moral Responsibility would be breaking the law for the right intentions. An example of breaking the law for the right intentions could be The Salt March that Gandhi Created or, Rosa Parks standing up for her beliefs about her actions, MLK wanting equal rights with caucasian. Illegal Immigrants coming into the