Civil Disobedience free essay sample

Civil Disobedience When should civil disobedience be justified? Civil disobedience is defined as the refusal to obey government laws, in an effort to bring upon a change in governmental policy or legislation. Civil disobedience is not an effort to dissolve the American government, because without government our society would result in chaos. Sometimes, when there is an unjust law and the government wont take the initiative to fix it, the public must act as civil disobedient to bring awareness and fix the unjust law. There have been times when citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government because of an issue that is unjust. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau made such actions to prove their point. Civil disobedience is justified when its goal is to obtain equal rights and service for everyone, without causing physical damage to people and their property, and without breaking the just laws that are already enforced. It should only be practiced when the government fails to uphold justice and fix laws that dont allow everyone the equal rights already given to some. In his essay, Civil Disobedience Thoreau wrote in 1849 after spending a night in the Walden town jail for refusing to pay a poll tax that supported the Mexican War. He recommended passive resistance as a form of tension that could lead to reform of unjust laws practiced by the government. He voiced civil disobedience as An expression of the individuals liberty to create change (Thoreau ). Thoreau felt that the government had established order that resisted reform and change. Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary (Thoreau ). Thoreau refused to pay the poll tax because the money was being used to finance the Mexican War. Not only was Thoreau against the war itself but the war was over Texas which was to be used as a slave state. His friend Staples offered to pay the tax for him, but to Thoreau it wasnt the tax he was objected to; it was how the money would be used. He believed strongly against paying money to a war he did not support, and would rather end up in jail than go against his will. A certain passage shows how strong he felt when he said Your money is your life, why should I haste to give it my money? (Thoreau ). It was important to Thoreau to get the public informed about the War, and make people think why it was wrong to support it. Thoreau didnt rally hundreds and thousands of people together to get reactions. Instead he went to jail to protest and wrote his essay Civil Disobedience. His statements were to get people to think and take their own approach to the situation. Ralph Waldo Emerson, a writer who expresses his belief similar to Thoreau’s beliefs although he does not address civil disobedience directly. He states, â€Å"what I must do, is all that concerns me, not what the people think† (Emerson). Behind his words, Emerson means that he should follow his conscience regardless of what side it is on. He believes that one’s true action is important than conforming: â€Å"Your genuine action will explain itself and will explain your other genuine actions. Your conformity explains nothing† (Emerson). In making this comment, Emerson urges us to not conform to society and do what is believe to be justice, which in fact can lead to civil disobedience just as Martin Luther king displayed. MLK did not conform to society and stood up for what he believed. Many years after Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, one of the most famous writings in response to negative attention given regarding acts of civil disobedience, has been Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. `s Letter from the Birmingham Jail. He states that One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly with a willingness to accept the penalty (King ). King used peaceful sit-ins and rallies to unite the black community. Blacks were forced to sit on the back of busses, use separate bathrooms, water fountains, spaces in a restaurant, and schools. Segregation made the blacks feel inferior and unequal. King led many black protesters to use methods such as banning busses, sit ins, and marches. These non-violent acts of public speech eventually lead to Kings arrest for leading a non-violent march in Birmingham Alabama. Those who commit civil disobedience do so, not to break the law, however to correct an injustice, and thus accept the consequences for breaking the law. Here Dr. King is establishing that they have a goal to achieve: to correct unjust laws which prevent equal rights for everyone. He further states that those who agree to acts of civil disobedience must do so accepting the consequences that come with it. Here he is establishing that they are not simply breaking the law to cause chaos, however to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice. King and his followers proceed in a non-violent, way which does not violate the rights nor harm others, thus he commands the respect for his cause. His reason to challenge the unjust laws is legitimate because he acts in a non-violent way, with a willingness to accept all brutal acts whilst not reciprocating it, to dramatize the issue so that it can no longer be ignored. Civil disobedience has sometimes been characterized as an attack on our democratic government, however this notion does not hold true. However, while I believe civil disobedience is justify, Lewis Van Dusen wrote Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy, in which he declares that civil disobedience whatever the rationalization, is still an assault on our democratic society, an affront to our legal order (Dusen). Dusen states, â€Å"Those who advocate taking the law into their own hands should reflect that when they are disobeying what they consider to be an immoral law, they are deciding on a possibly immoral course.† (Dusen). In other words, people are taking unjust action to better a situation because of how it is unequal. Dusen believes that whatever the reason, disobeying the law is defying our democratic government and our legal system. Democracy has been defined as the principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community. If civil disobedien ce is achieved to change our legal system for social equality, how can it be disrespecting our democratic government when democracy demands equal rights for all of mankind? Van Dusen further states that civil disobedience is not above the law, but against the law. When a civil disobedient disobeys [he] says that he is above the law. disobedience shows a distrust for the democratic system (Dusen). Followers of civil disobedience are only against the law which is against them-the law which is against allowing them the equal treatment that they deserve. When the government fails to acknowledge their right for equality, they must act against the law. They are not asking to be elevated above thelaw, rather to be elevated to the same position of those who were not discriminated against-those given equal treatment. They have the right to distrust the democratic system which prevents them from living likewise as all others. Civil disobedience, when used to insure equal rights, is not disrespecting our democratic government, but rather enforces the tradition which our forefathers have created to improve our government. The goal is not necessarily to ensure every ones happiness, rather to promote equal treatment and that services are not to be rejected on the basis of race, age, or any such trait. Our legal system was made so that we could enforce legal channels of change, if we choose to neglect this attribute then we as humans cannot progress. Work cited Thoreau, H. D. â€Å"Civil Disobedience. † A world of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 173-199 Emmerson, R. W. â€Å"Self-Reliance. † A world of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 259-267 King, M. L. â€Å"Self-Reliance. † A world of Ideas: Essential Readings for College Writer. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Boston. Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. 213-229