Civil Disobedience Essays

I strongly believe that peaceful resistance to laws does not only positively affect a free society but
it also makes sure that civil and human rights are upheld in a free society as well. One could even
make the argument that our own great nation was built on the very act of civil disobedience to
unjust laws. In the famous essay "Civil Disobedience" Henry David Thoreau he states that people's
first obligation is to what is moral and right not what is simply dictated by the law. This then means
that when a government is unjust, people are in the right to refuse to follow the law and distance
themselves from the government in general. This theory of civil disobedience can be applied to a lot
of famous fights for liberty and rights throughout...show more content...
However Civil Disobedience is not simply a feature of the past it is also a part of our modern day
discourse of current events. An ongoing story that signifies civil disobedience well would of
course be the Keystone Pipeline protests that whether people agree with the protesters or not
there is no doubt that it is a prime example of modern day civil disobedience. Then on an even
bigger scale let's talk about Malala Yousafzai a girl who was shot in an act of civil disobedience
in order to fight for her right to education. These acts are both instances where citizens decided to
peacefully disobey laws in order to stand up for what they believe is right. Both of these acts are
simply ones of many that signify that civil disobedience and the peaceful resistance of unjust
laws are still keys to maintaining a free society today. Civil Disobedience as can be shown by all the
instances and events not only affects a free society in a positive way but it also gives a voice to the
Get more content on HelpWriting.net

Civil Disobedience Essay
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: "Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in
governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other
non–violent means" (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any
aspect of a discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a
fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an action, while Hannah Arendt
managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews.
But, regardless of the fact that people relate this topic in...show more content...
Once the conscience has done its work, the process of passive resistance begins. However, passive
resistance, unlike the name suggests, is in actuality very much active. It is active because it requires
a great deal of commitment; with commitment comes time and effort; with time and effort comes
patience; and with patience comes the clear–headed thinking required to bring down the forces of
the oppressor. No effective act of disobedience can be random; it must be carefully planned and
executed accordingly. When the Germans wanted to impose anti–Jewish methods upon German
Jews taking refuge in Denmark, they were met with the most organized of resistance: in one such
instance, Danish officials promised their "immediate resignation" should any anti–Jewish acts occur
in Denmark (Arendt, 2000). Still, in order to offer more consequential protection to the Jews the
Danish government had to employ more strategic means. The use of legal manoeuvrings enabled the
Danish government to prevent the Nazis from imposing anti–Jewish rule in Denmark. In addition,
assistance from a few traitor Nazis who sabotaged orders from Berlin, including a warning of the
impending exportation of the Jews from Denmark, greatly improved the Danes' ability to protect
their Jewish refugees (Arendt, 2000). Similarly, in the case of Martin Luther King Jr., a great deal of
planning and

Essay on Civil Disobedience
All throughout world history, human beings have participated in acts of civil disobedience.
However, in the last two centuries the belief and practice of it has been in full swing and has even
brought on major historical events, especially concerning equal rights and just laws. Three major
firm believers and activists in civil disobedience were Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr.,
and Gandhi. All three of these men participated in acts of civil disobedience but each in his own
way and for different reasons. Henry David Thoreau believed that a certain war tax was unjust
during the Mexican War and he refused to pay it. This then lead to his arrest and one day in jail
where he wrote the essay "Civil Disobedience." Martin...show more content...
The person in the passage does not even talk about using negotiations to achieve their goal,
instead they directly refuse to follow a rule which a direct rebellion toward the government. This
passage relates to Thoreau's method of civil disobedience the most. The reason for this is because
Thoreau believed that he had a moral obligation to himself to do what he thought was right,
instead of a government who does what they believe is right for its people and themselves.
Thoreau stated this best when he said, " the only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do
at any time what I think is right." This is exactly what the first quote was stating, that the protester
has an obligation to himself first and can do anything including directly disobey an unjust rule in
order to fulfill that obligation. Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi on the other hand believed in
negotiating with the government first before participating in acts of civil disobedience and they
also believed that everyone should still follow the rules and laws, only disobeying them if they
oppressed human beings. Martin Luther King Jr. expresses this belief when he stated that, "
Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community
which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks so to

Abstract
Civil disobedience is the term assigned to actions taken by individuals to sway public opinion about
laws that individuals deem unfair or unjust. Actions taken are usually nonviolent, and can include
sit–ins, mass demonstrations, picket lines, and marches. Citizens are acting on their consciences,
demonstrating highly advanced moral reasoning skills. Generally, these advanced skills fall into
Kohlberg's Six Stages of Moral Development, Stage Five and Six in particular. Characteristics of
civil disobedience include no expression of anger, no cursing or insults, no retaliation, and
submission to punishment by law enforcement. Historically, there have been many instances of civil
disobedience: women's suffrage, environmental...show more content...
History has recorded the role civil disobedience has played in many social reforms: the civil rights
movement, women's suffrage, abolition of slavery, environmental demonstrations, labor union
strikes, and anti–war movements. In each instance, citizens were motivated by deep–seated,
conscientious beliefs that laws were wrong; all legal means, ie: lobbying, court appearances,
petitioning, and legal protests, but were often ignored by political machinations and powerful
individuals. Such was their moral convictions regarding what they experienced or believed to be
injustices, individuals were willing to give up personal comfort and safety in order to effect change.
Generally, citizens taking part in civil disobedience employed noncompliance. Noncompliance is not
considered as an act of hostility toward police; it is a form of resistance wherein those involved in the
protest go "limp", or become passive. Citizens simply refuse to comply with officer direction, since
the foundation for nonviolence is to undergo a risk to one's self without causing harm to others
(actupny.org, nd, para 15). Noncompliance, as a technique, was influenced by Ghandi and the
passive resistance techniques used to end British rule of South Africa (Infoplease.com, nd). Ghandi's
directives for those engaged in civil disobedience included: not to express anger, never retaliate,
submit to orders, submit to

Civil Disobedience
Depending on what perspective to take on this question, peaceful resistance to laws can have a
positive or negative effect as different stakeholders from different perspective viewed peaceful
resistance differently. Peaceful protest from the perspective of the protesters engaged in civil
disobedience is a peaceful way to bring awareness to the injustices happening in society, while to
that of the government and officials, it would seem as disrupting the "peace" in society. On the
perspective of a protester, civil obedience to them positively impact a free society because civil
disobedience is a way for society to advance forward without the current problems despite being
"free". Civil obedience in a way is a method to solve current issues...show more content...
Civil disobedience, fundamentally, is still disobeying the law that upholds order in society and by
challenging the law, it is basically committing a crime. Thus, in the perspective of government
officials who are responsible in keeping order of society within a nation, civil disobedience is
consider as negatively impacting a free society as it incite other people to emerge and protest, which
sometimes can be dangerous. Thus, civil disobedience in the government official's perspective in a
way is "a recognition of the constant threat of trained troublemakers and rabble rousers aimed at all
times against our entire society."(Civil Disobedience: a Threat to Our Society). For example,
Edward Snowden who leaked confidential information without authorization. He was someone of
intelligence and working with confidential information, but he decided to leak important
government information which disrupts the free and peaceful society, which his action is
considered "against" society as he did not follow the law and engage in civil disobedience.
Therefore, in the case of government official perspectives, the act of civil disobedience can be seen
as negatively impacting society as it is "against" the societal norms and

Civil Disobedience
Henry Thoreau wrote an essay about it in the 19th century. Martin Luther King, Jr. preached it in the
South. Mahatma Gandhi encouraged it in India. Nelson Mandela went to jail for promoting it. The
Bible says that Paul, Daniel, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego were all guilty of it.
According wikipedia.org, "civil disobedience encompasses the active refusal to obey certain laws,
demands and commands of a government or of an occupying power without resorting to physical
violence."
As Christians, the dilemma is to follow the precepts of government to the letter and violate the
commandments of God, or remain faithful to God, and become an enemy of the government. Martin
Luther King fought against government...show more content...
Being a strong man of God, there is no doubt that King saw how his disobedience to the law was in
direct conflict with the word of God.
Submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to every authority instituted among men: whether to the king,
as the supreme authority, or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and
to commend those who do right. For it is God's will that by doing good you should silence the
ignorant talk of foolish men .
Remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever
is good, to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and to show true humility toward all men
.
So, Dr. King chose to subscribe to and to witness about the commandment to "love your neighbor as
thy self." In keeping with this commandment, he was on the wrong side of laws that were meant to
keep a portion of God's creations as less than rest of the community. But he was also keeping with
the commandment of God.
The Old Testament has various examples of men of God practicing civil disobedience. When
Nebuchadnezzar built huge idols and demanded that every one worship them whenever music played,
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego refused to worship anything or anyone other than God himself.
Nebuchadnezzar made it clear that they would be tossed into the fiery furnace. They refused, were
put into the furnace, and delivered by God .
King Darius made a decree that there would no praying in his

Essay Civil Disobedience
To Speak or Not to Speak?
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. received a Nobel Prize and was honored by the President of the United
States for his contributions to society. On the other hand, he was prosecuted, convicted, incarcerated,
and had his sentence reaffirmed by the Supreme Court. These explanations seem rather
contradictory. If what he did was noble, why was he jailed for his actions? When we take into
account these manifestations of the government's attitude towards Martin Luther King, we can
safely make the assumption that the government is not always justified in the laws that it creates.
Our government's original purpose was to keep order and ensure freedom to its people. As history
has shown us, as in the case of African...show more content...
He can tell his congressmen that he feels a law is unjust. If the congressman is unwilling or
unable to change the law, he may make a proposition to change the law during the voting periods.
The only problem with propositions is that they are a matter of appealing to the majority. If the
majority feels that there should be a change and enough people sign the proposition, it will
become enacted. However, if the law is only affecting by the minority of people, these two routes
will not create a change of a law. It is clear in such a case that civil disobedience is vital to insure that
the government does not over–extend its role.
Civil disobedience is defined by the Merriam Webster Online Dictionary as "a refusal to obey
governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of
forcing concessions from the government." The most popular example in U.S. history when this was
used was during the Civil Right Movement in the 1960's. The Jim Crow laws at the time restricted
African Americans from being able to attend public schools or use public restrooms that were
designated as "white only." Despite the fact that they had paid taxes like anybody else, these types of
segregation laws targeted minorities and made them second rate citizens. It is evident that the Jim
Crow Laws were imperfect as the humans that created them. Martin Luther King, who was sincere in
exposing the government's wrongdoings,

Civil Disobedience
Peaceful resistances to unjust laws both positively and negatively impact a free society. After there
has been enough national attention over these protests, large opposition can ensue violence. No
matter how careful, meaningful, or powerful the peaceful protestors are there has been a backlash of
violence from many different parties. Civil disobedience has been a predominant way minorities have
fought for their rights. Women and African Americans have been protesting since the beginning of
the United States through civil disobedience. The Women's Rights Movement made its first major
sign of progress when the 20th Amendment of the Constitution was passed; allowing women the
right to vote. This feat was only achieved because of the peaceful protests of these powerful women.
And because of these women, an entire gender is now able to actively participate in the government
that represents them. Without the free society of America and the people's...show more content...
While the women's rights movement was predominantly peaceful, the African American civil rights
movement has been somewhat violent from both sides of the issue. Since the passing of the 13th,
14th, and 15th amendments aka the Civil War Amendments, African Americans were now
emancipated from slavery, American citizens, and able to vote. A violent KKK group enforced Jim
Crow laws that continued to segregate African Americans from white society. African Americans
were forced to omit from voting even when they had sovereignty because of poll taxes and literacy
test specifically for African Americans. This continued oppression heightened in the late 1950s.
Peaceful protests lead by Martin Luther King Jr. took a turn to violence on the protestor's side
because of his death. The Black Panther party ran by Malcolm X promoted a "whatever means
necessary" stance on civil

Civil Disobedience
What is our Nature? Disobedience is the lack of obedience or the refusal to comply with one of
power or authority. Many people believe that obedience to authority will help mankind grow and
expand. On the contrary, how can one grow if he/she cannot speak for himself? Individuality is the
quality or character that distinguishes them from others of the same kind. When one is obedient
they are not seen as individual but as a part of a congregation. Obedience can be best categorized as
conformity. Therefore disobedience can be illustrated as individuality.
Human nature can be expounded as the general psychological characteristics, feelings, and
behavioral traits of human kind. Is it in our nature to be obedient, to conform to authority? Authority
...show more content...
The Catholics from England are a great example of what Fromm means when he says, "If a man
can only obey and not disobey, he is a slave; if he can only disobey and not obey, he is a
rebel...."(640) The Catholics were slaves to the religion of England. They were only left with the
choice to move overseas for freedom. Once in the colonies, they refused to obey the king any
longer. When they began to seek freedom they were considered rebels and disobedient. Is
disobedience apart of our nature? World renowned philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, Explains that,
"Disobedience is the true definition of liberty." The Catholics wanted their own religion, and no
longer wanted to be a part of the religion that was forced upon them. They wanted to be individuals.
But remember as we stated earlier, individuality is synonymous to

Civil Disobedience
It's difficult to imagine a world where citizens follow laws they agree with and disregard those
they are against. However, what if the laws they disregard should never have been laws in the first
place? Civil disobedience is a method used to fight injustice in society. In the words of Doctor
Martin Luther King Jr., "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." If injustice is not
confronted, it will continue to seep into every facet of society. This can transform a once free society
into one that is trapped under clutches of injustice. Therefore, peaceful resistance, although
uncomfortable, positively impacts and preserves a free society. The Declaration of Independence
says that if a government becomes destructive, it is the citizen's

Essay about Civil Disobedience
The political concepts of justice and how a society should be governed have dominated literature
through out human history. The concept of peacefully resisting laws set by a governing force can
be first be depicted in the world of the Ancient Greeks in the works of Sophocles and actions of
Socrates. This popular idea has developed over the centuries and is commonly known today as civil
disobedience. Due to the works of Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. civil
disobedience is a well–known political action to Americans; first in the application against slavery
and second in the application against segregation. Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience" and King's
"Letter from Birmingham Jail" are the leading arguments in defining...show more content...
Thoreau makes that evident in the following quote from his essay: "There are thousands who are in
opinion opposed to slavery... who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to [it]; who, esteeming
themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say
that they know not what to do, and do nothing; and even postpone the question of freedom to the
question of free–trade..." (Thoreau, 270). Thoreau demands civil disobedience from his fellow
countryman to correct the errors of the government in regards to slavery and the war of his time.
Thoreau defines this concept as a deed of willful resistance, obtained by disobeying the hypocritical
laws. One deed he offers his countrymen to consider as their deed of civil disobedience, is a refusal
to pay taxes. Another deed, one Thoreau highly recommends, is to avert oneself from conspiring
with the government in refusing to actively participate in it. Most importantly civil disobedience is
civil. Meaning that the resistance to the government is peaceful and non–violent in it's methods.
King's work in civil disobedience seems to be in agreement with Thoreau in regarding civil
disobedience as a duty of his fellow countrymen. King demands justice for the African Americans in
the civil rights movement of the 1960s in his letter. King's famous line to call the people out to
demand justice from the government, "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere,"
(Schulke,

Civil Disobedience Essays

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Paper Writing Service Reviews

More from Paper Writing Service Reviews (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Civil Disobedience Essays