In a democracy, is civil disobedience an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice? This was a recent debate topic that I feel still sparks good discussion so here's the basics...let me know what you think or what side you wold like to hear my views on...I'm willing to take either side here.
Civil Disobedience is peacefully and deliberately breaking the law to get government concessions from the government to get an unjust policy changed.
Civil disobedience is often linked to three people Thoreau, Ghandi, and Martin Luther Kind Jr. Thoreau was jailed after refusing to pay taxes he felt was unjust, then went on to write about the justifications of c.d. which is where the term was actually coined. Ghandi used civil disobedience to lash out against the British government when they were controlling India. He went so far as self starvation to get his point across. Martin Luther King is probably the best known of the three for his c.d. He engaged in peaceful protests, rallies, and sit-ins during the civil rights movement. He and many of his followers risked death threats and went to jail for their disobedience.
Many people also bring up the social contract when discussing civil disobedience. This is a doctrine that basically says we have given the country consent to govern. We relinquish some of our rights in return for the benefits the society gives us. It also says that if the government breaks it's side of the contract, it no longer exists. The contract actually encourages protest, but it can be used for both sides.
I feel that this is a very controversial issue for both sides. So please let me know what you think.
Is it okay to break the law?
By vern - Posted on March 5th, 2008
Isn't this notion of civil disobedience the very principle that got our country "off and running?" It seems to me that America must defend this idea, or else we are hypocrites. I don't know, personally, I think that it is okay to break the law when it contradicts God's higher law.
Until We Know the Truth...
http://www.progressiveu.org/blog/brokenclay
Actually, while civil disobedience was used to start our country it was against a Parliment that was near totalitarianism, not the democracy we have in America. This is why we would not be hypocritical to disallow c.d.
and as for the contradiction to God's higher law...this is where things get sticky...b/c I do hold that we cannot be morally bound to a law...but we do have political obligations to the law by living in this country....furthermore, how do we define God? if we were to allow c.d as long as it had a religious justification that would mean to all religions. This would mean killing or raping someone would be okay b/c your version of God tells you to do it. It would mean allowing the breaking of laws by extremists, neo nazis, and the KKK. This is something the government cannot allow when looking out for the good for the general society.
Our founders did a lot more than just civil disobedience. They engaged in open violent revolution.
But b after they won, they tried to replace tyranny with a system where the people had a voice via representative government and there were mechanisms for changing laws and checks and balances against tyranny. For the most part they were very successful.
So there would be a reason to not defend the idea of civil disobedience because we are not a tyranny and there is a process which allows laws to be changed if it is the will of the majority and a Constitution and a court system that protects the rights of the minority.
Of course our system has not been perfect and there have been times where cd has been the impetus for change. Another example not mentioned in the blog was the underground railroad.
I think cd should be a LAST resort and should only be used when other acceptable methods for correcting gross injustice have failed. Those who engage is cd should be prepared to accept the consequences of breaking laws.
I agree with you. and yes the underground railroad is another good example...but there are also things I like about c.d....not to be mentioned here since I've thus far been arguing against it
I encourage you to make a proposal to debate this in the true debates forum... it would certainly be an interesting debate to read.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Want the highest rated list to change? RATE those blogs, then!