Persuasive Essay On Civil Disobedience

How does one reach the conclusion that a societal change is needed? Do they merely decide one day that the current manner in which leadership in their country is running is too mundane, and a change would provide some needed excitement? More often than not, this is not the case. The decision that civil disobedience is a necessary action is not one often made impetuously, as said by Mahatma Gandhi, “ it implies discipline, thought, care, attention and sacrifice”. For one to imply that civil disobedience is no more than an act of unlawful defiance against one’s government is a half-baked analysis and requires a more utilitarian way of thinking; simply put, peaceful resistance to law— in most cases, positively affects a free society.
Civil disobedience
Henry David Thoreau in his essay tittled, Civil Disobedience, worded it best stating, “...men serve state...not as men mainly, but as machine”. An over zealous case of nationalism causes citizens to allow their identity to be based upon their allegiance to their country. Now, there is nothing inherently wrong with this however, it does bring about a false sense of absolute security in one’s government, which leads to individuals believing that any opposition to his government, or its laws, is a vagrant act of disrespect not only to the country, but to themselves and hence, threatens all order in the nation. The logic behind this ideology simply lacks cohesion; if one truly cares for the order and the sanctity
To be clear though, civil disobedience never undermines just laws; furthermore, a person committing civil disobedience more than likely wishes nothing more than for these just laws to be upheld. The law that civil disobedience does however intend undermine, is unjust law, but as said by St. Augustine, “an unjust law is no law at all”; so, if one finds that statement agreeable technically civil disobedience does not undermine law at all . Now this begs the question, “How does one identify the line between a just law and an unjust law?” The answer to this question lies in the morals and feelings of a group of individuals. If a part of free country's population feels that a law directly goes against their morals, violates their rights, victimizes them or oppresses them in some way, such as the legal persecution of the Jews in the Holocaust, it is an inherent right of that group to counter that law with resistance, and a government should hope that resistance is peaceful, just ask Louis XVI about the result of the alternative. As aforementioned, everything must be done in moderation to be effective and peaceful resistance is no exception to the rule, but without it the Berlin Wall would still be standing strong and de jure Jim Crow would undoubtedly still be in effect; with these harsh realities in mind it