Pros And Cons Of Civil Disobedience

Improved Essays
Man is born with a consciousness of right, wrong, and order of the world. It is out of these nature-given morals that government is born. Therefore, should government not also have morals as if it were a living and breathing man? The drawback is that government makes mistakes just like man. Some laws are just so unacceptable that is not only the people’s right, but duty to disobey them. Following the laws that govern us blindly is a dangerous way to live. It is acceptable to go against the government when the government threatens lives of innocents and restricts free will, when the government loses the best interest of those it governs, and when the government neglects to acknowledge the voices of the people.
It can only be expected that people
…show more content…
It is not an unfamiliar case when the common middle-class citizens fall through the cracks of government. “I tried to get a movement going in town. It was unsuccessful... The town officials were extraordinarily pro nuclear.” (Lovejoy) It was not for lack of trying that Sam Lovejoy was unable to get those in power to listen to his outlook on a new nuclear plant. Government must listen to all views and ideas no matter how in minority. Considering all the options gives a more concrete and certain outcome. Lovejoy’s choice of civil disobedience was not a rushed and hasty reaction, but a planned and predicted response. He was not reckless and was prepared to serve time for the crime of forcing people to listen, much like Rosa Parks. It is understandable that he felt he had no choice but to defy the law. He had real and reasonable concern and suspicion that the new plant would be more harm than good. It is government’s responsibility to submit to the will of the people, not the other way around. When this concept is not followed, it is not the “criminal” to blame but the out-of-line government who forced his …show more content…
However, not at situations are the same and every standard has exceptions. Now, it cannot be denied that there is a fine line in between civil disobedience and criminal acts. Many make the mistake of crossing the line. Also, there is a great dispute over when breaking the law is the best response or if people should achieve their means other way. On the other hand, if a law is unacceptable in the first place then why should a person have to follow it, however short a time? The will of the people should not be repressed. Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.” I think that Thoreau, Parks, and Lovejoy would all

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Police Shootings

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages

    Their whole thing is to serve and protect the people. To uphold the law which we live by and to prevent more needless crime from happening. Without any law enforcement there is chaos and mayhem. As you said, “where there 's no law, chaos reigns.” There is another thing I also have to disagree with in your article. Again, even though you stated so sarcastically, “treating them (police) as though they are guilty until proven innocent would be wrong,” and yeah it is wrong.…

    • 773 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    King’s writing, the individual is capable of his own conscience. They both acknowledge that unjust laws will remain until people decide to take action and change them. One’s conscience allows him to make his own decisions about what is morally right or wrong. Therefore, the individual is responsible for choosing to follow the government and cannot simply obey. Both men believe that the unjust law “is a code that the majority inflicts on a minority” group that it does not adhere to itself.…

    • 703 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    There are times when a time for change has come and that time can be because politicians refuse to listen to the people or take action about a cause. Though not engaging is just as hard as not engaging in the situation. There is no limit to the amount of injustices committed and it is unfortunate though there the time when the people must go against other people. The goal is to be non violent however there are times when violent actions occur and this causes the public to suffer. The goal is to justify everyone through fair play or Distributive justice which defined as fairness for the people.…

    • 599 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Because a law that degrades and demoralizes ones self is no law at all, and if exposing this law is illegal isn’t just more right. Socrates believe that is a sort of domino effect when everyone gets to breaking the law after the law does them wrong, but he is wrong, because if in breaking law you get your point across then you can actually make change. A perfect example of this is Dr. King’s cause; he does not care who he has to go through because the need for his people’s sake outweighs anything else in his mind. It is the people of color who are being served the wrong side of the law every time that they are unfairly and unjustly arrested or even lynched by a mob of angry racist people who have nothing better to do with…

    • 1975 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    Summary Of Tocqueville

    • 1744 Words
    • 7 Pages

    Tocqueville claims that to be unlawful, one is opposing the majority’s idea of justice not real morality. Real morality and justice are inherent in humankind whereas what governs America is constructed by humans (107). Because Americans feel they have played a role in the refinement of the laws, they feel represented - thus they actually believe in the laws. This is dangerous because when everyone enforces the laws (not just the government's appointed justice keepers) everyone is forced into believing them - no one can think outside morality without being condemned for disagreeing with a government they are supposedly represented by. The idealization of the American government by the people within, forces people to agree with them because to disagree would be to disagree with the majority and the majority has the power to ostracize them.…

    • 1744 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    However, Thureau understands that he can only do as far as his role, and that he cannot force this knowledge onto to others without their willingness to be aware. He acknowledges that the minority choose to be naive because knowing is a painful task, and that not everyone is ready to take such a burden. All he can do is silently declare war against the government and hope for a better…

    • 722 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    This would mean that the application of this principles involves creating a kind of fear to people to prevent criminal activities in society. While this principle may be effective as it is, it also has been faulted by many. This is because creating fear among people would not be a sustainable way of mitigating criminal activities in the world. This is because it is only effective on a short-term basis. In this regard, people will not commit the crime not because it is wrong, but because they fear the consequences; they fear being arrested and displayed in a court of law.…

    • 787 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So basically the conclusion is that if there were no laws it could be very difficult to have order and to everyone do the correct things, I think we could probably would not follow all the laws and the world would be a mess, because is very difficult to control ourselves, and as Hobbes said it is because we are naturally like this. But a thing that Hobbes and Locke were agree was that “people must give up some of their rights in order to gain protection and the security of basic rights.” Good and evil are two concepts that the same man created, and with this concepts we can know now what is good and what is bad, what we can do and what we cannot do. So since the time that we are born the society tell us what are the bad things and what are the right things, and with this we are able to know what we are supposed to do and we know that if we do not follow the rules and the laws, not following them could give us consequences. But if we had followed the idea of Locke this could not exist, and I do not imagine a world without this, because for us is easy to break the…

    • 1080 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    As someone who is being governed by a government he finds unjust, Thoreau believes we must object to anything we find morally wrong. He claims the public must rely on their morals, and conscience to stand up to a government that does not rely on morals and…

    • 792 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    In fact, their belief entirely opposes another. Legal positivists believe that “legal rules or laws are valid not because they are rooted in moral or natural law, but because they are enacted by legitimate authority and are accepted by the society as such”. The main difference between law and morality is that if one ‘breaks’ the law and gets caught, they will receive a justified punishment for their action, most commonly known being sent to prison. Where a person goes against the moral values within a society and there is no law to support it, they would only be seen as deviant. There have certainly been circumstances which have showed proof for the fact that law and morality are connected, however this does not necessarily mean that laws are always…

    • 1474 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays