Topic > The controversial issue of using civil disobedience as a method of protest in a democracy

The United States of America is a country run by a democratic government, in order to protect the rights and freedoms of citizens in its discursive community. When social issues arise, citizens have the right to protest and share their opinions on the topic, thanks to freedom of speech. However, those who protest must not violate the rights of others, otherwise they would be breaking the law. There are many different methods of protest used throughout history, including nonviolent acts such as petitions, stickers, songs, boycotts, strikes, sit-ins, marches, and memes. Other forms of protest include violent acts such as bombs, terrorism, murder, and destruction of property. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original EssayBoth forms of protest, violent and nonviolent, are used to change laws and social norms. However, the most commonly used method of protest is known as civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is a form of nonviolent protest used to change, or to raise awareness of an unjust law, or the need for a new law. Those who follow this form of protest often break laws or violate the rights of others when advocating their cause. This is a common problem among discourse communities and leads to the question, “Is civil disobedience an acceptable method of protest in a democracy?” Many authoritative sources such as Plato, Martin Luther King, and Van Dusen have differing opinions on this issue, just like the common American population. Civil disobedience has been observed throughout history during protests such as the Boston Tea Party, the American Revolution, the Women's Suffrage Movement, and the LGBT rights movement. However, one of the first examples of civil disobedience occurred when the philosopher Socrates was imprisoned, due to his controversial youth teachings in Athens. Socrates decided to remain in his prison cell, even though his friend Crito made many arguments against it. Socrates made many points to support his decision against civil disobedience, such as the ideas of a social contract, utilitarianism, and self-interest. . He claimed that obeying the government would be for the greater good, because disobeying it would destroy its authority and this would cause more problems for the Athenian citizens. Obedience to the government is necessary for its function and laws to be valid. If the rules were ignored, the functions of government would be useless and their consequences would not be respected. Socrates explained that it is never right to break a law enacted by the government, because it would harm everyone involved, directly and indirectly. As a citizen of Athens, he was educated, fed and protected; therefore he must follow all the rules and regulations of the government. In Plato's "Crito", Socrates explains that "He who does not love us and the city, and wants to emigrate to a colony or any other city, can go wherever he likes" he likes, retaining his property. But he who has experience of the way in which we order justice and administer the State, and remains, has entered into an implicit contract that he will do what we command him” (254). If Socrates did not respect the laws of the Athenian government, he had the possibility of moving elsewhere. However, he remained as a citizen of Athens and was expected to follow the laws and accept the consequences of violating them. Socrates, as a law-abiding citizen of Athens, decided to accept the resulting consequence of his crimes, the death penalty, if he escaped from prison, he would set a bad example for his students and would beridiculed by his fellow Athenians, because he would become a fugitive for the government. who protected him throughout his life Civil disobedience was not chosen in this situation, because Socrates respected the consequences of his crimes and accepted responsibility for what he had done. Martin Luther King Jr. was an active promoter of civil disobedience during his protests for racial equality in America. He argued that civil disobedience was necessary as a way to prevent violence while urging change in oppressive laws in society. He explained that breaking unjust laws is an acceptable action if done respectfully, and that punishment for disobedience is paid without conflict. King used civil disobedience to call attention to unjust segregation laws, as well as convince his fellow clergymen of how they oppressed much of the population. In "Letter from Birmingham Jail" Martin Luther King explained to the priest that it was time to change the segregation laws were now and not later, when it seemed convenient. They believed that change would come over time and that it was not a good idea to push for change ahead of time. King believed that the time for change had come and realized that there were many official steps that needed to be taken before civil disobedience became a logical option. King stated that “In any nonviolent campaign there are four basic steps: gathering facts to determine whether injustices are alive, negotiation, self-purification, direct action. We went through all these passages in Birmingham” (280). King looked into whether racial inequality was strong in Birmingham and tried to make changes through conversations with authorities and took legal action. King tried to negotiate with the merchants to remove their demeaning signs from the stores, but the merchants refused to make the change. However, none of these options worked, so King decided that civil disobedience was the next logical step in making a change to America's oppressive racial laws. Lewis Van Dusen Jr. had a distinguished career in law, military service and writing. He explained both sides of disobedience, on the part of the law, as well as on the part of the protesters. Protesters see it as a peaceful protest, while lawmakers see it as a deliberate form of disobedience to the government. Van Dusen explains that civil disobedience is done with good intentions, but it degrades the democratic system of government. When protesters try to take justice into their own hands, the illegal actions violate the rights of others and disrupt the natural democratic process. The techniques used by the protesters convey the message that the American justice system does not work and that the government has failed in its democracy. In “Civil Disobedience: Destroyer of Democracy,” Van Dusen explains that civil disobedients are morally and politically irresponsible because they do not interact properly as functioning members of democracy. Explain that protesters use their nonviolent techniques to speed up the process of change; however this type of involvement separates them from democracy and shows that they do not believe in the government's ability to make changes to the laws. Van Dusen states that “when civil disobedients through lack of faith abstain from democratic involvement, they help realize their own grim prediction. They help create the social and political foundations for their own desperation. By foreseeing failure, they help shape it” (1). When citizens move away from democratic forms of change, their actions.