Civil Disobedience: Are We Morally Obliged to Obey Unjust Laws?

Thoreau refused to pay the poll ax because the money was being used to finance a war he was against. This war was over Texas, which was to enter the Union as a slave state. He wrote Civil Disobedience while in the Walden jail. Thoreau wrote how disappointed he was with the government by forcing him to pay a poll tax that supported a war and slavery. King would later go to jail acting on his beliefs. Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau used civil disobedience to change people’s ideas and beliefs to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation.

Have you ever felt a rule you had to follow was unjust? Have you ever felt your moral instinct tell you not to follow it? Prominent figures in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, felt this way and decided to not follow the rules imposed on them by indulging in “civil disobedience”. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying laws or customs with the purpose of combating moral injustice. This form of protest has proven to be quite effective in making change in history. In “Civil Disobedience” and the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, both Thoreau and King Jr. write their justification for their actions as well as their feelings regarding the particular disputed

Civil disobedience is the act of nonviolently refusing to obey certain laws as a form of political protest. This usually results in accepting the consequences of breaking the law, such as jail time. Martin Luther King Jr., a proponent of civil disobedience breaks down this definition by stating the differences between two types of laws: just and unjust. One difference King makes states “A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (King 39). In other words, King states that a just law must agree with the principles of our own truths: what we perceive as right and wrong.

At first glance, respect for the social contract and civil disobedience seem to be in direct opposition of each other While some may argue that this affection prevents him from practicing civil disobedience. Additionally, they argue that any violation of the law would erode its power and lead to anarchy. However, their argument oversimplifies the social contract as just a set of rules to be followed when it includes consequences for breaches of the law. Further, as King argues proponents of civil disobedience, who break unjust laws and accept the consequences, display a rich love for the law. To illustrate the difference between civil disobedience and disrespect for the law King lays forth a set of requirements;

At times laws are made that contradict the moral convictions of the governed. Of course some acts of civil disobedience cannot be justified, but when specific religious and moral rights are violated, a response is necessary. It is wise for the public to take action to change laws which they believe to be unjust and morally crippling. As Carl Cohen stated in his Seven Arguments Against Civil Disobedience, most acts show respect for the concept of laws and because of this they are urged to correct them.

I believe civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, usually without violence, but only if it’s to make a point. In Thoreau’s essay about civil disobedience, there were points made which I agreed with, but there were things that I disagreed with. Some points he made that I agreed with was that if someone wants something to change, they should do something and do it wholeheartedly. An additional point he made which I agreed with was to depend and think for one’s self. While he’s made points which I agreed with, there’s one I didn’t which was when he said that the military was programmed to do whatever the government says.

In this regard, therefore, civil disobedience arises in a situation where a person or a group of individuals actively decline to obey the set laws and regulations and make it clear to the law enforcers that they can by no chance obey such laws. In philosophy, civil disobedience is explained as the failure to accept and follow the law and consequently acting in violation of the law. This essay discusses civil disobedience from two different perspectives as presented by famous philosophers; Socrates and Martin Luther King Jr (MLK).

The term disobedience can be interpreted differently depending on how someone looks at it. Martin Luther King Jr. for instance once said: “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”. A moral responsibility, to not only respect someone's action but to respect it even if it's disobeying the law that they believe are unjust. Which this portrays that everyone has a voice and it should be heard no matter what. Society should not be the judge because of our voices.

In the modern age of America, there are many people who have read and abided by the beliefs of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a philosophy created by Henry Thoreau that states one must not conform to certain laws for a variety of reasons, which was also an ideology utilized by Martin Luther King Jr. The world has witnessed many acts of disobedience from the masses, and have thus portrayed the idea that this belief still operates successfully. The ideology that surrounds civil disobedience also strongly influences the individual in a particular society, which also depicts the principles of this belief have adjusted to the modern world. In the new age of America, the beliefs of Thoreau and King are still prevalent and found in society due to the influence it has on movement that brings change; thus, illustrating that American citizens commonly refer and utilize this belief.

Civil disobedience is defined as the “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in government policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means”; theories on this topic have been debated for centuries. (American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg161) Henry David Thoreau was well known for his refusal to participate in the political systems or activities of his era, not only by refusing to pay his poll taxes for six consecutive years, but also by announcing that he did not wish to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau stresses the need to prioritize one’s conscience over the dictates of laws. A person should not be obligated to devote his or her life to eliminating evils from the world, but is only obligated not to participate in such evils themselves. He argues that the government rarely proves itself useful and this derives from the power from the majority because they are the strongest group, not because they hold the most legitimate views. Justice is the quality of being just, impartial or fair. Thoreau doubted the effectiveness of reform within the government, and argued that voting and petitioning for change served useless. He felt that justice had different standards for each different group. Which raises the question, is justice fair for everyone? When a government is unjust, people should

Thoreau wholeheartedly agreed with the idea of questioning a law that many find unjust, and many agree with him. Citizens that engage in Civil Disobedience are not overextending any form of right, but are in fact using the ones given to them by their constitution. Also, by engaging in civil disobedience, citizens are criticizing their government, something that was encouraged in the Greek and Roman republics which the United States bases the government upon.

In order to demand for a change, most people would take action and oppose by resisting. One may peacefully resist while others choose violence over logic. Civil disobedience is defined as “the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences.” Civil disobedience plays a crucial part in peaceful protests. Peaceful resistance to laws mostly cause a negative impact to a free society.

From the time we are children and throughout the duration of our lives, we are told to abide by certain sets of rules. In most situations this is a perfectly acceptable expectation; speed limits, remaining quiet in libraries, and waiting until the age of twenty-one to drink are all reasonable things to ask of people. After all, these rules and laws are put in place to ensure a peaceful and safe society. However, when these rules begin to infringe upon the rights of certain groups, some citizens turn to civil disobedience as a form of protest. While some may argue that civil disobedience is nothing more than a violation of the law, it has also proven to have a positive impact on society, in more ways than one. Used by Mahatma Gandhi and Martin

Furthermore, a person who acts with civil disobedience means, in the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “One who breaks an unjust law… openly, lovingly…, and with a willingness to accept the penalty”. In other words, civil disobedience is respectfully breaking a law that is disagreed with, and then openly accepting the consequence. During the world’s history,

The question whether or not civil disobedience is justifiable in a democracy has been a controversial matter among thinkers and politicians. Views vary from almost absolute support to the legitimacy of civil disobedience in democratic societies to conservative support and to the rejection of the idea.