Civil Disobedience And Loyalty

Words: 910
Pages: 4

The extent of obedience and loyalty one must possess when it comes to their respective states has been a point of contention for quite some time. Historically and culturally we have seen humans wrestle with the concept of civil disobedience and what such an idea entails. For some, civil disobedience is always a nonviolent, public display of a person and or group refusing to obey certain laws and commands recognized by a government or power structure. For others, civil disobedience can consist of violent acts when warranted. Nevertheless, the concepts of civil disobedience have been around for a while, with many contributing to it’s growth. For instance, the philosopher Socrates in Plato’s, “Crito,” is imprisoned because he refuses to stop …show more content…
Not simply to decide if something is just or unjust when it only affects the majority, as he displays this comparing the revolution of 1775 to the complacency of his fellow men in regards to slavery. This point is driven home even further when Thoreau acknowledges the risk a society takes when leaving laws and statutes up to chance through the voting process. What if the just and righteous thing to do fails to prevail? A reality Thoreau states, no wise man would allow to exist. Moreover, during his time Thoreau believed that the majority would only vote for the abolishment of slavery once they’re indifferent to the practice or it no longer serves a benefit and is practically phased out. Like Thoreau, I to believe that the majority will only favor and vote for respectable laws that are humane when the people themselves mainly become unconcerned in regards to whatever fight needs to take place or find themselves routinely taking up a cause when the paradigm has already shifted. Subsequently, as Thoreau puts it, allowing themselves to become slaves. Under the oppression of an unjust state, societies shouldn’t be satisfied that the political process will …show more content…
The political process itself is generally a tedious road. So if one feels that change is in order, why wait things out ? Why would one choose to battle the government under rules they themselves instituted? Wouldn’t this be counterproductive, unless the entity itself is content and finds the change beneficial to them as well. Essentially, deeming their interest more important than the interest of true justice. It is my impression that peaceful, civil disobedience is obtainable and more effective when the majority decides to render support to one another, breaking away from the establishment, communicating enough is enough. Yes, imprisonment may come, maybe lives will be lost, as time has shown governing authorities aren’t hesitant to use force when their livelihood and special interest are brought into question. Yet, this is definitely an actuality each man, woman of every creed, color, and race should take into consideration. However, does such sacrifices legitimizes the masses refusal to fight not only for themselves, but the disenfranchised, and future