When is civil disobedience unjustified

Civil Disobedience is effective because it creates a lose-lose situation for whatever Power the Disobedience is directed towards. If no one ever disobeyed what was considered acceptable, a nation or group would never reconsider their way of life to consider if they are wrong and correct their mistakes.

For this reason, I agree that disobedience is a valuable human trait and it promotes social progress. The Irish author Oscar Wilde claimed that disobedience is a valuable human trait and that it promotes social progress. Therefore, disobedience promoted the abolition of slavery, gave women equal rights, and even gave gay rights, which are all examples of social progression.

Its primary finding may be summarized in this lesson: Civil disobedience is justifiable but dangerous. It is justifiable, where circumstances warrant, by the first principles of the American republic and of free, constitutional government, and it is dangerous in that it poses a threat to the rule of law.

Hint: The Civil disobedience movement was one of the Indian National Movement when people started protesting against the British government because of their harsh policies and rules. Then in , the Non- Cooperation Movement was launched where people of India started boycotting foreign goods, institutes and jobs.

The peasants joined the Civil Disobedience Movement because poor peasantry were not just interested in the lowering of the revenue demand. The cry for immediacy is the cry for impossibility. It is a cry without memory or perspective.

Immediacy is impossible in a society of human beings. What is possible is to continue patiently to build the structures that permit the development of better justice. The fact that particular reforms have not been completely achieved does not justify rejecting legal means—the only hope for lasting achievement.

The demand for equality cannot be converted into a fight for superiority. We must be for equality under the rule of law. We are for freedom under law, not freedom against the law.

Let us also avoid unreal questions such as whether justice is more important than order or vice versa. Order is the sine qua non of the constitutional system if there is to be any possibility for long-term justice based on public consensus. I take it that all men now accept the fact that there can be no justification for violent disobedience under our constitutional system.

Is the concept validated when the disobedience is nonviolent? In my opinion this idea has no place in our law society. Yet I prefer to base the case on broader grounds. The concept of righteous civil disobedience, I think, is incompatible with the concept of the American legal system. This is particularly axiomatic where this society provides more than any other for orderly change; where every minority—including the minority of one—has been protected by a system of law which provides for orderly process for development and change.

I cannot accept the right to disobey where, as here, the law is not static and where, if it is claimed to be oppressive or coercive, many effective channels for change are constantly available.

Our courts do not have to apologize for their continued dedication to the liberty of all men. Our legislatures have regularly met the changing times and changing needs of the society with consideration for the unalienable rights of all. Even the federal and state constitutions have been amended. Our law has not only been a guardian of freedom, but the affirmative agent for freedom.

While the idea of civil disobedience may evoke sympathy where the claim is made that the cause is just, once we accept such a doubtful doctrine we legitimatize it for other causes which we might reject. Some people may think that civil disobedience is a thing of the past, a kind of action limited to historical figures such as Mahatma Gandhi, Rosa Parks, or Dr.

Martin Luther King, Jr. This is not true; Acts of civil disobedience are happening presently all around the world. Is disobedience good or bad? Its primary finding may be summarized in this lesson: Civil disobedience is justifiable but dangerous. It is justifiable, where circumstances warrant, by the first principles of the American republic and of free, constitutional government, and it is dangerous in that it poses a threat to the rule of law.

Why should you not break the law? A person must break the law not because it is convenient to do so, but because they sincerely believe the law is unjust. If you truly believe the law is wrong, you should break it in a public way so that people can see what you are doing.

You should then prove your sincerity by taking the punishment for your actions. Is disobedience a good thing? Civil Disobedience is effective because it creates a lose-lose situation for whatever Power the Disobedience is directed towards. If the Disobedience is ignored, then the Power is admitting defeat and allowing for further disobedience. Is disobedience ever justifiable? It is often argued that civil disobedience can only be justified if there is a high probability of producing positive change through that disobedience.

Only this can justify exposing one's society to the risk of harm. The harms usually identified with civil disobedience are as follows. The moral justifications of civil disobedience are usually present in order to make the act acceptable. When the citizens of a country view their government as being unfair or corrupt, civil disobedience is sometimes necessary in order to correct society for the better.

Therefore, if there is a concrete reasoning behind why the civil disobedience is taking place, then it is usually justified. Civil obedience can lead to government frustration, Potentially leading to violent backlash from authorities harming people.

Even though civil disobedience isn't violent, It can lead to violence not only within different communities, But can involve government force. A better way to show you disagree with a policy or idea is to convey it in a mature way. Fundamentally, Civil disobedience is predicated on the idea that change should be effected through members of the public being insubordinate to the law.

This attitude is ultimately destructive to the moral authority of the state and the implementation of justice in that society; if anyone may protest the law by disobeying it, Then the law becomes hollow and social order is undefended.

Civil Disobedience is not the only way to get the message across. People breaking the law could say, "Oh, NO! I would never break the law! I was doing Civil Disobedience! CD breaking the law sets a bad example and there are other ways to create change. CD can harm people. CD allows people to break the law.

CD is counter productive and it stops any kind of change. CD disrupts peace. Even though when violent its no longer civil disobedience, it still caused the violence.

Civil disobedience should not be morally justified. It leads to violence, and can possibly start to kill people. When civilians protest against people who are given titles, it is very disrespectful. It becomes violent and illegal Although every human in the United States has the right to protest, we must take into account the safety of people. In Charlottesville, a peaceful protest became violent after one terrorist killed an innocent person. The civilians in the disobedience have the intent to frustrate the government.

Civil disobedience also leads to undesired, severe economic effects. Furthermore, civil disobedience leads to outright destruction when a minority of protesters turn violent. We saw this in Ferguson, Missouri when riots occurred in conjunction with protests. Civil disobedience is disruptive to society. The idea of slavery was against the Constitution and has created racism and violence. In conclusion, civil disobedience should not be morally justified.

It encourages violence and is disruptive because of the protests. Although every human has the right to freedom of speech, opinions etc. We should also take into account the safety of those around us.