How Is Civil Disobedience Justified

Improved Essays
Civil Disobedience
Thoreau declares, “The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think is right” (Ogunye). He ostensibly acknowledges no authority other than that of his own moral sense. In this essay, civil disobedience will be defined as the unwillingness to obey civil laws in an attempt to prompt change in governmental law or procedure, demonstrated by the use of nonviolent methods. The matter in question, then, is whether such civil disobedience is justified in a democratic society. The value of this essay’s argument is fairness; that is, defending human rights and granting each his or her due. The most appropriate way to grant each his or her due is by means of democratic government. Therefore, civil
…show more content…
Although legislation is enacted by a majority, it must be constantly validated to ensure that it is fair. There are two justifications for this. First, the majority possibly enacts an unfair law. Second, while a law may have been deemed fair initially, governments and viewpoints are ever-changing. Time and again, people will experience a difference in belief and want to restructure pieces of legislation (Olsen). In other cases, there needs to be a propulsion for a difference in belief. This propulsion is civil disobedience, which decreases the likelihood of unfair legislation. Since several laws are unfair as laws are biased, civil disobedience is a means of defense for minority groups. Minorities are suppressed, even in a democratic society. If there is any legislation that persecutes a minority group, in some instances, civil disobedience is the only method to prudently communicate a differing position. One well-known example is revealed in the event of Rosa Park’s refusal to relinquish her front seat to sit in the back of the bus. After Parks continued to sit in the front of the bus, she was penalized. Nevertheless, it compelled people to think. The American public ultimately recognized how unfairly black people were being treated. Without the practice of civil disobedience, minorities would have no defense against unfair …show more content…
The opinions of the minority are not always right; neither are the opinions of the majority always right. Therefore, both sides must receive an equal chance to express their ideas. The presence of legal systems for attending to matters of unfair legislations does not necessarily ensure that such matters would be attended. Undeniably, it would be illogical to believe that the government would be quick to improve its own disorder yet it neglected to identify the disorder to begin with; civil disobedience is essential. Additionally, civil disobedience may be set aside as the pis aller but this would defer justice and consequently form a bigger issue (Lefkowitz 212). Furthermore, although a person has a responsibility to follow state laws in exchange for experiencing the advantages of residing in that state, such a convention does not include unfair laws as they are proscribed. Lastly, civil disobedience may counteract the greater iniquity of repression thus it is a public benefit in such instances (Olsen 220). There is nothing to lose with civil disobedience because if the majority opinion is not changed by civil disobedience, justice and stability remains sustained. However, civil disobedience strengthens the possibility of improvement. If no one defies a law, then there will be no means to determine if the law is perhaps

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Last but not least, people should be willing to accept legal consequences. Participants should respect the law by bearing any possible consequences caused by civil disobedience. The core value of civil disobedience is a political act that is out of pubic goods. Violation of law at the first place is out of desperation and positive aim but not malevolent. Willing to submit to punishment is important in showing respect to the legal system.…

    • 912 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Devlin and Dworkin agree that not every individual is capable of giving consent and there should be restrictions of what individuals are capable of such, this would allow legal intervention in some of the acts Devlin considers immoral. Public morality is something that comes from justification not from a reasonable man making decisions for society as a whole. Although if a society has an overwhelming opposition to an act that Dworkin would deem as justificatory then there should be a right to overturn such act otherwise it could potentially be more harmful to society than prohibiting…

    • 1204 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    One, instead, should be able to criticize the beliefs of others. James is correct in claiming that one should use their will when forming certain beliefs; but contrary to what he thinks, this process does not lead to the maximization of true beliefs. Preconceptions heavily influence what one wills to believe. If these preconceptions are tainted by false knowledge, formation of new true beliefs becomes difficult. James’ theory would be effective at creating many new beliefs but his process does not emphasize the creation of true beliefs, as he desires.…

    • 1421 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Great Essays

    (Railton 795) The Pyrrhonian model is much more plausible attempt at defining moral skepticism because unique individuals possess to distinct worldviews. Arguments arise because people can’t reach compromises on various issues. By using Pyrrhoian skepticism the individuals defines what is moral using their own judgments. People should not be dictated by what they are told is right and just because it is quite plausible that they are being deceived. While one cannot ever assume that any moral claim is a truth, modest justification can be provided by consideration of contrast classes.…

    • 1131 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Great Essays

    Marmor's Argument Analysis

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages

    The argument’s premises are (1) that the Constitution protects only those rights that “reflect a deep level of moral consensus in the community,” (2) that the Constitution “is required in order to protect [these rights] from…short-sighted, momentary political temptations,” and (3) that the Court is free of these kind of populist pressures “precisely because [it] is not a democratic institution.” From these premises, it follows that constitutional rights are most secure when in the hands of courts. Again, this argument is nearly identical to the one I just made, although it adds the following implication of “moral consensus”: without a proper counterbalance to populism, the majority may tyrannize itself by uprooting the values it has already deemed worthy of constitutional protection. A simple example of such self-imposed tyranny (perhaps that is too strong a word) is in the passage of The PATRIOT Act in 2001. After terrorist attacks, an irrationally but understandably fearful majority of the country agreed to grant the federal government a previously unheard of power to search citizens’ phones and…

    • 2212 Words
    • 9 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Superior Essays

    In this theory, the law is validated, not by morality, but by the shifting demands of the society. Hart then has no issue in confronting Aquinas. At the same time, his arguing against Aquinas is questionable at best. He essentially asserts that the belief that an unjust law is not a law is an exaggeration so extreme, it cannot be upheld as rational. Hart recognizes that morality and law share qualities, as in duties and obligations, but he holds that Aquinas confuses the two to an unreasonable extent.…

    • 945 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    She states that if one is to properly persuade anyone, they must do so from a close proximity to their opposition’s beliefs. A small correction to one belief set is still supported by accepting truth, whereas a major paradigm shift is less likely to hold up in from the opposition’s standpoint. This seems to be a pretty basic debate strategy, but suggests a fundamental flaw in the current argumentative tactics. It seems easy to pick a topic wildly different from your own, and shoot holes in it from your perspective, but those on the other side may not accept the arguments that do so, and may fire back in kind, leaving both parties going nowhere, but when one approaches from the same viewpoint, and carefully audits a path, suggesting small adjustments, it is a lot easier to come to a consensus. Here is the major problem with the evolutionary debunkers.…

    • 766 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    For Rawls, equality is central to the fairness and justice that he looks to emphasize. Therefore, Rawls would consider Rousseau’s ideal society fair when concerning the first principle of justice. Rawls would believe the society is just because it promotes equality of rights within the people. Even though Rousseau’s liberties are not specified beyond being civil liberties as opposed to natural liberties, it is still…

    • 1251 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Civil Disobedience is a citizen’s duty in the case of noble responsibility especially if the law is unjust. I know that breaking a law that is severely unjust may lead to consequences, but it is right when it leads to the empowerment and will for the best. There is no law on the books saying you are forbidden from civil disobedience. As long as the law does not agree with your perspective, we, as citizens, can oppose that law and do the contrary of it. In Antigone, Antigone chooses to disobey the laws of Creon, the king of Thebes.…

    • 499 Words
    • 2 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    After all, it is just laws that describe what is right and fundamentally moral. Rights established by authorities higher than the average person. Let's go back to the question of telling the truth. The law orders "do not lie" and it is a good ban, because if all people did not lie, then human life would be free from the consequences of lying. Therefore, Kant says, “(…)immediately I realize that I may want to lie, but never a universal right to lie; for, according to such a law, there would be virtually no promise, because in vain I would pretend to others that I would do so in the future when they would not believe it anyway, and if they had even made it reckless, they would give me a wet token” (Popkin 67).…

    • 1097 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays

Related Topics