Why Civil Disobedience Can Never Be Acceptable in the Society
Civil disobedience is the act of defying and refusal to obey a law or order from the government without using violence. This can be seen in revolts and peaceful protests for independence or the changing of laws or rights but can be punishable by imprisonment and is extraordinarily hard to justify in court. The concept of civil disobedience is the main topic for the essay, several pdf articles from the Internet were examined to make argumentative statements on curret topic.
This has, in the past, been used for good where laws were unfair or discriminative against a certain race. For example when Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on a bus, thus starting the Montgomery bus boycott, this was an act of civil disobedience although it lead to the banning of segregation in America and therefore was ultimately a good thing as it allowed the non-white populations to begin to get the same rights as everyone else did. On the other hand it keeps order if laws are followed because generally laws protect us and allow people who are hindrances to society to be removed and put in prison. For example if somebody tried to drive a horse and cart on the motorway at three miles per hour this could be seen as civil disobedience but puts them and all other road users at risk.
Many people in the past have believed that it is one of the only ways with which change can be made to begin the change which will lead to fairness or to get the thing which they want to happen. If somebody knows the consequences that their actions might have and the punishments which could be bestowed upon them then it could be argued that they then should commit civil disobedience as they know what the consequences will be but believe that what they are doing is for the greater good. For example Dan Swampy Hooper knew the consequences of protesting against the roads by building the tunnels under the building site but believed that the world was a better pace if he did to halt the road building to try and prevent their being built. It could be argued that as long as he knows and accepts the consequences of his actions it is acceptable for him to make his point if he cares this much about it.
Generally when it happens unless the human right to protest has been removed there is usually another way which is not illegal. However it could be argued that this doesn't always work if the people protesting have a minority of power and the opposition will not listen, for example the suffragettes were forced to vandalise and to chain themselves to railings, often getting arrested in the process, to get themselves heard. On the other hand when the changes necessary can be made without the need to brake any laws by simply using the power of words it is usually better to do so. It decreases the risk of getting arrested and so long as it is not the overthrowing of the entire state can usually be changed without the need for enormous amounts of resistance once the leaders have been persuaded that in order for the country to move forwards this is the course of action which is needed.
In conclusion, whether civil disobedience can be acceptable is often based on the size of the issue and whether the people committing the offence have a reason for what they are doing. I however believe that so long as the people who commit civil disobedience understand what they are doing and still believe strongly enough about the cause to carry on that it should be accepted as a form of moving the human race forwards towards a fair world and that so long as it remains unviolent and the issue benefits the community civil disobedience can sometimes be accepted and listened to as the voice of minority and restricted peoples seeing an unfairness in this world and deciding to do something about it.