Civil disobedience is justified when applied under the appropriate circumstances. While law breaking should not occur on a regular basis, civil disobedience can be a useful and just tool on some occasions. In this text I will discuss three points that explain when civil disobedience is appropriate to use. First, civil disobedience is justified when government institutions take too long to make change to legislation or social policies. Second, when a society’s leaders are morally corrupt and refuse to make change, the use of civil disobedience may be necessary to counter this. Finally, civil disobedience is just when one is attempting to bring increased awareness and support to immoral issues, as opposed to relying on traditional methods. Despite these reasons, one may reject the use of civil disobedience based on the idea that breaking the law is always the wrong thing to do. However, I will respond to this objection later in the text, arguing that obeying immoral laws is worse than actually breaking them.
Creating, revising, or getting rid of laws or social policies is usually a time-consuming process that can take months or years to complete. In many modern societies, citizens have the power to have their voices be heard by the government. As a result, people may choose to vote and partake in politics in order to change legislation or laws in general. However, political institutions are not always capable of carrying out these tasks in a timely manner. In turn, individuals who are negatively affected by negative laws (or lack of good laws) are subject to endure them until they are finally modified; however, even when a law is eventually finalized (or dismantled), the outcomes of these events may not fully satisfy those who are seeking change. This implies that citizens must wait through the law revision process yet again, thus continuing the cycle. That being said, the use of civil disobedience can be justified in a situation in which revised legislation is not being passed quickly enough. For example, imagine a democratic society in which a number of citizens want slavery to be outlawed. Presidents are only elected once every three years in this society. During election season, those against slavery vote for the presidential candidate who vows to abolish the practice if elected. The votes are counted, and the anti-slavery candidate loses to a candidate who is pro-slavery. The citizens must now wait for the next election to vote for another anti-slavery candidate, but above all, the society’s slaves will have to endure suffering and inhumane treatment for at least another three years. In this situation, civil disobedience is justified because justice and the establishment of fair laws must be expedited. Civil disobedience is an effective tool for speeding up law revision process. This is because physically protesting an unjust law is more abrasive and compelling than passively voicing one’s opinion or submitting a vote.
Occasionally, a government may be comprised of individuals who oppose change because they wish to oppress a certain group of people. More specifically, a political body may contain leaders who are racist, misogynistic, and ultimately against expanding the rights of the oppressed. Relying on this kind of government to establish fair legislation is futile. If an oppressed group of people desires equal treatment in this society, they won’t be able to rely on those in power to create change. Therefore, using civil disobedience to acquire equal treatment in this situation is justified because the law will not change otherwise. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s fight to grant African Americans civil rights portrays this struggle. While imprisoned in Birmingham Jail, King wrote, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (King 2). During the period of King’s movements, individuals in power had interests in maintaining laws that discriminated against African Americans, so King pursued civil rights through acts of civil disobedience. Often, King’s acts are viewed in a positive light, despite the fact that he broke laws throughout his campaigns. All in all, civil disobedience is justified in a situation where political leaders are morally corrupt and oppressive, and citizens are fighting for equal treatment and ethical legislature.
Civil disobedience is also justifiable in situations where an issue is relatively unknown by the public. Societal problems may be played down by politicians through various methods and can be completely overlooked by the masses. However, if there is an ongoing unethical issue that people don’t know about, the ethical thing to do is to bring it to light. Through forms of civil disobedience such as public protests, more awareness can be brought to unjust laws or policies. If enough people are protesting against something, this provides evidence that something in society is actually wrong and needs to change. For example, climate change was not always a pressing issue in the way that it is today, but due to protest, the world has become more aware of the climate issue. In an article by Erika Portillo, she refers to this occurrence. Portillo claims “Through non-violent acts of civil disobedience, such as marches and strikes, the new environmental activists, led by younger generations, have rightly succeeded in getting the attention of the international media and the public opinion and, in turn, this is having an impact on world political leaders who cannot pretend to ignore them any longer” (Puntillo 8). As evidenced by Puntillo, engaging in civil disobedience can influence leadership figures to acknowledge ongoing problems. In turn, these leaders may then enact policies that support change and combat these issues. Therefore, civil disobedience can be just when used to generate public awareness about inconspicuous issues. Through calling others to action and creating momentum towards change, civil disobedience is a justifiable and useful tool.
While I believe that civil disobedience is justified in certain situations, one may disagree with this belief because breaking the law is the wrong thing to do. This is an understandable objection due to the fact that laws typically provide order, safety, and benefits to a society. However, I believe following a law that harms or discriminates against others is a much worse decision than breaking said law. One should always seek ways to reverse unethical laws. If that means having to resort to civil disobedience, I would view this as a justified decision because it opposes an unethical law. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated, “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws” (King 3). To this objection, I would ask that the objector considers King’s remarks. I too believe that good laws are not meant to be broken, but an unjust law must not be followed.
In conclusion, civil disobedience can be justified when it is used in the correct situation. Civil disobedience should not be used frequently, but there are some circumstances in which it is justifiable. When revised laws and reforms are going to take too long to be enacted, civil disobedience is a just course of action. Civil disobedience can hasten the legal process and lead to ethical gains at a quicker rate. In situations where societal leaders are oppressive and opposed to equal treatment, using civil disobedience to facilitate ethical improvements is justified. This may be one of the few options someone has in a society like this. For significant issues that are suppressed or not well-known by the public, civil disobedience is just when used to bring awareness to these problems. By taking action through protest or other means, it is likely more people will become cognizant of the issues at hand. Some may believe that civil disobedience is not justifiable because breaking the law is wrong, but I believe that following along with an unethical law is worse than going against it.
Reflection
The main takeaway I have from writing this essay is that civil disobedience is sometimes a necessity when someone’s life or basic well-being is being threatened due to an unjust cause. I don’t think that there is much room for civil disobedience in modern day United States, but in other nations where oppression is prominent, civil disobedience may serve as one of the only means to get justice and fair treatment. Nonetheless, the United States one hundred years ago was different than the United States today. It’s difficult for me to imagine a United States in which figures such as Martin Luther King Jr. did not have equal treatment until progress began being made during the Civil Rights Movement, in which one may argue civil disobedience is what primarily assisted King in acquiring equal rights. That being said, another main takeaway I have from this essay is this: using civil disobedience, or refraining from it, can be a deciding factor in determining if someone will gain equal treatment from a society’s lawmakers.
Works Cited
Puntillo, Erika. “Environmental Civil Disobedience: How It Is Influencing the Public Opinion and the Political Agenda.” (2019).
King, Martin Luther, Jr. Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963). Abridged.
Be First to Comment