Law: Civil Disobedience - Essay Example

Nam: Task: Law: Civil Disobedience The rule of law is imperative in the governance of any democratic society. Democracy grants citizens the right to decide on the best laws to govern them. Citizens of a democratic society also have the right to amend every law they perceive unjust or immoral. However, there are instances of citizens’ refusal to obey the rule of law as set by the government. This causes civil disobedience. Diverse authors, philosophers and leaders have varied opinions on civil disobedience. Proponents of civil disobedience highlight its effectiveness in correcting unjust laws. However, civil disobedience is never a justified strategy to correct unjust laws in the society. In every democratic institution of governance, there are legal channels set for citizens to address possible injustice or immorality in the society. There are diverse legal avenues of addressing perceived injustice that emanates from legitimate laws in the society. If citizens must engage in civil disobedience, they should exhaust all legal channels that are effective to correct unjust laws. Nonetheless, civil disobedience has no merits in enhancing democracy in any society. Civil disobedience refers to deliberate defiance of unjust laws by the society members or citizens. In most cases, affected citizens protest against laws that they perceive as unjust and immoral in the society. In most democratic regimes, citizens have an obligation to adhere to the provisions of every legitimate law. There are instances when citizens in a democratic society violate their obligation to obey the rule of law. The question as to when an individual or citizen holds the right to practice civil disobedience, however, remains controversial. An analysis of the limits of citizens’ obligation to obey the law is imperative to understand to civil disobedience in western legal tradition. It helps determine if any citizen has absolute permission, right, or duty to disobey an unjust law. In some circumstances, citizens disregard the law by intent while claiming possible injustice. In most instances, citizens committing civil disobedience have justification for their actions to breach the law. They highlight reasons related to their integrity or purpose to correct identified injustice that emanates from relevant laws. The justification for contravening the law emanates from different perspectives. Proponents of civil disobedience including citizens, leaders and philosophers had diverse justifications to support their viewpoint. Civil disobedience essay by Henry Thoreau Thoreau wrote his renowned essay on civil disobedience as a stance to defend resistance to unjust laws and legislations by citizens. It analyses the relationship of an individual and the government that applies unjust laws. His central concern was to question American’s engagement in war and slavery, which were constructs of unjust laws according to him. He equally condemned the notion of blind obedience to oppressive laws by Americans. Thoreau expressed his disgust concerning the level of authority that the government exercises against the will expressed by the public. According to Thoreau, the American government failed to fulfill the will of the people as the sole requirement under the law. In his opinion, most governments are best to govern but exercise the least democracy. Thoreau expressed discontent with America’s engagement in the Mexican War of that occurred between 1846 and 1848. The war had adverse implications including extended slavery in the country. Thoreau maintained that America’s engagement in the war was against the popular will of the citizens. Besides, it was a condition promoted by few elite individuals in the society controlling the government’s affairs. The tendency of the government to give precedence to elite individuals over the public’s will renders it unsuitable to address concerns and will of the majority. Instead, the government engages in oppressive issues that demean the rights of its very citizens it has a mandate to protect. Most authorities and governments claim to represent the rights of the public, which that they notably oppress through unjust laws. Citizens, according to Thoreau, have an obligation to act in a manner dictated by their conscience rather than by unjust and immoral laws (Thoreau 7). An individual’s conscience should inform his or her actions, even if it contravenes the opinion expressed by the majority or rule of law. In cases when actions of the government are subject to unjust or immoral laws, every citizen retains the right to resist it. In Thoreau’s opinion, resistance against unjust and immoral laws in the country is an expression of patriotism. Resistance to immoral laws by set governments is an expression of an effort to enhance justice in the society. This involves patriotic service to the country. Thoreau, however, does not propose absolute resistance to the government by the public. He only advocates for resistance against laws that are unjust or immoral. Compliance with unjust laws by the public is tantamount to submission to other people’s moral standards. The right to revolution is only attainable when the citizens contravene unjust laws and programs promoted by the government (Thoreau 13). Resistance against unjust laws is a justification to attain revolution in the society. It is a form of disgrace for a citizen who is not a victim of injustice to support any unjust law promoted by the government. Every society or country that embraces revolution and change should promote democracy. Opposition to unjust regimes is fundamental to promote change through democratic means. Resistance to an unjust law or regime renders the government responsible in promoting democracy expressed through the will of the public. It is unjustified to support any government that promotes unjust laws through remittance of taxes, for instance. Thoreau expressed strong opposition to slavery and the Mexican War because they are immoral. However, it is imperative for citizens to support just and moral institutions of the government. Martin L. King, Letter from Birmingham Jail King’s opposition to laws that promoted segregation in America earned him a legacy as an activist for human rights. In May 1962, King and other members of the Christian movement in Alabama condemned the prevailing conditions of segregation that dominated in Birmingham. They protested against unjust laws promoted by then governor of Alabama, George Wallace. Civil rights violations directed at the blacks in Birmingham were common. Bombing of black churches and several homes in Birmingham were among the injustices promoted by segregation in the city. King and other blacks engaged in the civil protect received an injunction from a state court prohibiting their action. According to King, the injunction was at odds with the federal laws. He wrote the later during his eight days stay in jail Birmingham as a response to a previous letter in the local newspaper terming the protest as untimely and unwise. According to King, every citizen retains the right to advocate for justice in the country. In his opinion, it is vital for every citizen to contravene the law in pursuit for justice. He retained that he had absolute rights to defy the law in his efforts to challenge racial inequality in the country. King responded to white clergymen terming him as an extremist by justifying his reason for non-compliance with unjust laws. King responded to a letter by white clergymen in which they alleged that the demonstrations were against the provisions of the law. The white clergymen termed the demonstrations at Birmingham as untimely. In response, King referred to the demonstrations as an avenue to attain a just system of equality. In his opinion, it is admissible to defy laws in the society that are unjust and discriminative to part of the population. He advocated for non-violent avenues to address the plight of the blacks. The black protestors’ actions, according to King, expressed their intent to challenge the regime and campaign for desegregation. He expressed his quest, not for violence, but change of unjust laws. According to the white clergymen, breaking the law and engaging in extreme disorder were not the outright strategies to attain justice. In response to their claims, King termed any unjust law as “no law at all” (The Atlantic Editor 1). In his opinion, the blacks did not break any law but unjust legislations that were tantamount to lack of law. Instead, it is the black demonstrators’ moral responsibility to disregards unjust laws. He laws that the demonstrators allegedly violated, according to the white clergymen, were not morally sound. Therefore, they were not laws in King’s opinion. A just and moral law should protect the people and promote equality among all citizens despite their race. A just law should not degrade the society members based on their race. In his letter, King presents a clear distinction between just and unjust laws. Any law that is considerate of human privacy is just and moral. Laws should consider the natural rights to which humanity has an entitlement. In contrast, any law that is inconsiderate of human concerns is immoral and unjust. Every citizen bears an obligation, morally and legally, to disobey it. Socrates Apology and Crito dialogues Defiance of the law in pursuit for democracy is evident among philosophers such as Socrates. Socrates is a highly celebrated philosopher who showed political dissent to unjust laws during his trial. His reasons for defiance of the law were in pursuit of a democratic society. Socrates embraced political dissent during his trial as recorded by Plato. During his trial, Socrates challenged the political order and the laws on which it derived its basis. He maintained that any government that contravenes its laws acts in an unjust manner. Civil disobedience, in Socrates’ view, is admissible if it is a means to correct injustice in the society. Socrates criticized the laws of Athens that informed the reason for his trial. According to the prosecutors, Socrates’ choice to disobey the law would affect the entire legal systems in Athens and create disorder. In their arguments, the prosecutors maintained that there is no state if all citizens chose to disregard the law as Socrates did. Socrates’ choice of civil defiance would extensively affect the entire community. Social disorder would undermine the authority that the government has over Athenians. Under no circumstance, according to the prosecutors in Socrates’ case, should an individual defy the laws enacted by the state. Citizens, therefore, should obey the law even if they are unjust. Citizens have absolute obligation to respect every law that the state enacts. According to Socrates, there are circumstances that allow an individual to flout the law. The notion of civil disobedience to laws of the state is acceptable in Socrates’ opinion. He affirms during his trial that everyone maintains the right to choose to obey and defy laws. Every individual has a right to criticize political establishments and the laws that govern citizens in any country. Socrates maintained that engaging in unjust actions ruins an individual’s just characters (Plato, Grube, and Cooper 50). If the laws established in the society are impious, then everyone can and should question them. In addition, Socrates refers to his actions as divine and inspired by his obligation to god. He maintains that his obedience to god overrides that to the state’s unjust laws. He condemns any act of unconditional submission and surrender to laws that are oppressive. As stated in the Crito’s dialogue, the law has provisions that permit persuasion. Citizens, therefore, have no justification to surrender to the provisions of every law. Citizens can either persuade or obey the various laws in the society. Both Crito’s dialogues and Socrates’ teachings provide possible persuasion of the law. Citizens can amend the law whenever they recognize that it is unjust or immoral. Socrates finds the sentence offered to him by the court as unjust. He opts to death as a demonstration of his belief that any unjust law does not deserve his submission (Recco 78). Socrates argues for civil disobedience in the event that there is evident injustice. In Crito’s dialogues, however, Socrates maintains that should an individual fail to repeal or correct an unjust law, there is an obligation to obey it. Critical analysis Admissibly, laws may be unjust even in democratic regimes. Every citizen, in a democratic government, retains the right to challenge unjust or immoral legislation. That should take a democratic course through set avenues including the judicial system. Civil disobedience is not an expression of patriotism as maintained by Thoreau in his essay. An individual holds no absolute right to contravene the law when he or she perceives it to be unjust. An individual’s conscience should not form the basis of his or her actions. Instead, every citizen should observe the rule of law and amend it if he or she considers it unjust. Civil disobedience does not fulfill an individual’s right to revolution. It is admissible that every citizen retains the right to advocate for justice as expressed by King in his letter. However, citizens should not adopt the course of civil disobedience. It is acceptable as Socrates maintains that citizens have the right to criticize political establishments and the laws that govern them. Contrary to Socrates’ opinion, civil disobedience to laws of the state is inadmissible. No citizen, therefore, has absolute permission, right or duty to disobey an unjust law but to amend it. Civil disobedience is unjustifiable in any democratic regime. Works Cited Plato, Grube and John, Cooper. Five Dialogues: Euthyphro, Apology, Crito, Meno, Phaedo. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub, 2000. Print. Recco, Greg. Athens Victorious: Democracy in Platos Republic. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2010. Print. The Atlantic Editors. Martin Luther Kings Letter From Birmingham Jail. The Atlantic. 2013, April 16. Accessed: 2014, March 19: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/martin-luther-kings-letter-from-birmingham-jail/274668/ Thoreau, Henry. Civil Disobedience. Madison, WI: Cricket House Books LLC, 2013. Print. Read More