Essay Example on Civil Disobedience: Deliberate Refusal to Follow State Laws

Introduction

Civil disobedience informs the deliberate refusal to follow the states' laws and regulations. Disobedience has a contextual determination and can be moral or immoral. The illegal public act of civil disobedience neither damages property nor destroys lives, albeit aimed at changing laws in violent or nonviolent means. Instances of civil disobedience are among others, hunger strikes, and self-immorality when done publicly and for political causes (Leopold 1). Loss of lives like public suicide does not count as civil disobedience since life is lost. Civil disobedience is, therefore, morally justified in democracy since it underlies a person's moral conscience that informs his/her spirited nature when the laws of the state and religious tenants are perceived problematic and unsuitable for a person.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Discussion

Civil disobedience provokes the spirited conscience of a person to protest as a form of communication to the public sphere or when the laws of morality define the rules of right. When the government does not provide enough trust to the citizens, there results in moral arguments in both the private and public spheres against the state's immorality. The rights to civil disobedience exist even in liberal societies as they view it right and moral. They see its essence in playing a vital role in the constitutional regime. It also acts as a terminal device for the maintenance of the constitution in a just society and a correct way of morally maintaining the schemes of the composition, albeit contrary to law. And as Mahatma Gandhi depicts it, 'it is the purest form of the agitation of the constitution." (Hasker 426). Gandhi even denies it as being contrary to the law as in civil disobedience, the individual voluntarily submits to the law, and it involves quasi obedience, unlike the ordinary criminals that use force. However, critics of civil disobedience argue that the law does not give an option for conformity or penalty paying but instead has elements of a norm that should be confirmed. Gandhi responds to the critics of civil disobedience that other laws are more moral and unjust, thereby should be disobeyed. He says that obedience to such laws could directly undermine one's self-respect as such laws do not reflect on morality, justice, and self-esteem of an individual (Hasker 430). However, the individual is still mandated to obey the rules that are purely made by the state, based on moral and just principles.

Features of Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience encompasses conscientiousness, whereby it presents serious, sincere, and moral convictions when they have to breach the law. The breach of law is provoked by their need for self-respect and consistency in morals, coupled with their perceived interest in society. They, therefore, use their disobedience in drawing attention to the regulations and laws that depict need reassessment or rejection. In John Rowl's account of civil disobedience, the players address themselves as the majority so that their opinions can be considered and respected by policymakers (Brownlee). It is also featured by communication as the individual claims both forward-looking and backward-looking when civilly disobeying law to draw the public's attention on the condemnation of a policy or a proposal. It is also characterized by publicity through communication that is conveyed publicly. Hugo Badu asserts that the boost of civil disobedience is essential for both the government and society to be aware of using the strategy of the dissenter (Brownlee). Additionally, civil disobedience should not be violent as the violence acts would injure the civil disobediences' compatibility besides causing more harm to others.

Morality and Liberal Democracy

Morality is viewed in the realm of being either right or wrong or standing for good or bad. Authority involves the powers and determining outcomes through varied and vast players like individual, community groups, or states in both public and private spheres by the use of force, coercion, or control. Acquisition of moral authority is viewed in the emblem of power position possession since the moral policy is perceived to be fair, just, and right. Moral authority involves making decisions based on moral rights, which may, at times, be biased towards certain beliefs. The moral rights are underscored in realism, liberalism, classism, critical theory, or democracy (Sergio 43). A society where there is force the acceptance of the moral determinates of the majority exemplifies enslavement as it enslaves the right to civil disobedience. However, some aspects of ethical behaviors would only emerge in democratic societies democratic moral rights in opposition within the same democracy typifies the intolerance towards aspects of moralities, albeit tolerant with others.

Scholars' Views on Civil Disobedience

In the liberal democracies, an infringement of an individual's right of speech would underscore the incitement of civil disobedience against the society or state within the stipulated jurisdictions of such violations. Civil disobedience does not only entail taking illegal action by the public but also taking moral and legal obligations hence the existence of the autonomy in morals in civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is viewed differently by different political science scholars. NeoMarxisms have, over the years, argued that revolution to the state means a disempowerment for the workers and empowering the agencies that exploit the labor market. Neoliberalism asserts that there should be punitive actions to counter civil disobedience die to their opposition to the laws of the state. Authoritative moral actions typify the authoritarian states coupled with liberal democracies following the alienation of individual rights and civil liberties. Such claims purported by political ideologies are naturally universal and an amoral claim made on one's behalf equal to the one built on behalf of all hence the meager nature of a universally moral claim when compared with its sum parts.

The opposition of the Majority and Moral Authoritarianism

In a liberal democracy, one can opt to oppose the majority views when disagreeing with them, questioning their moral, social norms, and their legal assumptions in society. In that case, the individual would be exercising his inalienable rights and freedoms in a liberal democratic society. That can also be viewed in the aspects of the moral authority and moral authoritarianism, with the former portraying issues of legitimate rights while the latter refers to the imposition of the ideology. It is the moral authority that affects the rights for civil disobedience against an authoritarian state where there is legislation for punishment for those who jeopardize others' opinions at the expense of theirs. A democratic process is therefore needed to legitimize a moral authority as it is inalienable to the rights of humans. Moral authoritarian agents have always disputed the claims of its moral dictatorship nature on the grounds of idealism.

Civil Disobedience and the American Intelligent

Civil disobedience, being a personal right that violates the law out of moral obligations, takes a minimum of two dimensions, ethical and legal. Additionally, it assumes that for equality of requirements that should be provided for all citizens, aliens, and non-aliens within the United States of America. The American citizens have the moral obligation to question the government ideology to ensure political change, and that things are right, a notion is known as political intelligence. Since the end of WW2, the Criminal Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Intelligence Agency (NIA) have conducted many operations of information, including the Operations Mocking bird, Operation Mongoose, and CIA covert operations in Congo.

Moreover, there was an instance where the reporters inquired President Gerald Ford of 1974 on the correctness of dismantling a constitutionally elected government upon which he answered that it is possible, albeit for the county's best interest (Leopold 5). However, in spite of the moral outrage of the U.S. government in China on human rights, it forgets Hiroshima and Nagasaki's destruction. Had the U.S. failed to bomb the two Japanese regions, many people of Southeast Asian and foreigners would have died; hence, there was a need for the punishment of the Japanese to stop the war that they had started. That was also an American's effort to prevention the Chines and Soviet expansion to global communism. That also explains why the liberals involve the Americans in the Cuban Missile Crisis, the Korean War, the Bay of Pigs Fiasco, and the Vietnam War (Leopold 5).

Overview of the Instances of Civil Disobedience

In civil disobedience, the Protestants deliberately violate the law like the Vietnam War Draft, the Gulf War Draft, and the just war perpetrated by the American constitutions. Civil disobedience occurs in public, albeit nonviolent, and deliberates the public law in quest of bringing change as underscored in the theory of Justice by John Rawls. Rawls insists on justice as a political society virtue without morality or the thoughts for rationale. However, morality underlies the first policy virtue, neither just nor free (Thoreau). That is following the fact that there would be a diminishment of freedom, justice, and authority when there is no morality. Opponents of civil disobedience have always underscored that the act is an illegal activity and that they should not receive legal protection, and no government should consider it as it does not depict any straight defeat of logic. The 14th Amendment of the U.S. underlies equal protection for equal rights as all people within the states' laws must treat each other with respect and impartial manner in similar conditions and situations (Candice 688). Equal protection in the law is a core founder of a moral basis. Hence its application is across the state, and federal laws suit it, therefore, the states' moral right equal protections for all individuals under the law. It is the equal protection clause in the 14th Amendment that presents and supports cases of disobedience.

Punishment for Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience requires simple approaches of discipline as deterrence since the punishment's justification is the deterrence of people from breaching the law; hence, the system would render punishment for the disobedient that is deemed necessary for them with empirical considerations. The civil disobedient would only be punished by the monist desert systems and communications only if they deserve the punishment. The pluralist communicative system, on the other hand, would give due considerations to mercy and retributions to punish the disobedient o the punishment justified. The pluralist approach has always questioned the motive of the civil disobedient to provide the law to show them mercy (Brownlee). Since the civilly disobedient individual breaches the law, just like other ordinary offenses, they should receive equal consequences of the law when their transgressions are justified; hence, they deserve more or less, equal censors just like ordinary crimes.

Conclusion

Civil disobedience represents an act carried out by a group or groups of individuals that are radicalized and inspired by emancipating possibilities influencing their collective action (Sergio 49). It is no wonder civil disobedience is even if it is done for a moment when fighting for freedom. Civil disobedience remains an essential part of the liberal democracies, and the primary issues of civil disobedience should be addressed, coupled with its distinguishment of primary radical protest forms and how it shooed be treated in the law.

Works Cited

Brownlee, Kimberly. "Civil Disobedience" Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 4Jan.2007, www.platostanford....