Civil Disobedience
Because civil disobedience includes the violation laws, it is difficult to conclude whether an act is one of civil disobedience, or lawbreaking. During times of social strife- when a society is divided in opinion- there exists much controversy over whether or not certain acts of protest are qualified as civil disobedience. Within their definitions, the differences between civil disobedience and lawbreaking are clear. However, it is difficult to decipher whether a certain act is one of civil disobedience or lawbreaking, especially during a time when a society is divided and its differing opinions are non-negotiable. The Declaration of Conscience against the War in Vietnam, written by David Dellinger et al in 1965, is a prime example of the difficulty in arguing whether an act is lawbreaking or civil disobedience. The Declaration of Conscience broke the law in its counseling of others to refuse to serve for the Vietnam War. Those who signed the Declaration were aware of their violation of law; it was noted that the signing or distribution of the Declaration of Conscience "might be construed as a violation of the Universal Military Training and Service Act." It is clear that the Declaration violated laws. However, to some, it was
A defining characteristic of civil disobedience is the intent of non-violent, passive resistance to law. The civilly disobedient desire to change a law based upon their moral principles, and, by acting upon these principles, seek to benefit society. Lawbreaking, on the other hand, lacks the moral justification and purpose of civil disobedience. Because they acted upon principle, those who signed the Declaration argued that they were justified in their lawbreaking, and were exercising civil disobedience. Those who opposed the war did so for moral reasons, and therefore declared that signing the Declaration was an act of civil disobedience. " Furthermore, the Declaration noted, "Inhuman torture and senseless killing are being carried out by forces armed, uniformed, trained, and financed by the United States. Because lawbreaking is unjustifiable for moral reasons, lawbreakers avoid the consequences of their actions, whereas the civilly disobedient face their consequences in order to call attention to the unjust law. Lawbreaking and civil disobedience have differing purposes, goals, motivations and intended actions. By calling attention to the unjust draft law, signers and distributors of the Declaration ultimately wanted to put an end to the war in Vietnam- an event that would benefit America, as well as Vietnam. Although it had broken the draft law, the violation was justified because of its purposes and goals, according to those who opposed the war. To some, the Declaration of Conscience was an act of civil disobedience. Because of this, the signing of the Declaration of Conscience could have been considered civil disobedience. An act of civil disobedience must also be motivated by morality. However, since civil disobedience usually takes place during a time of great social strife, acts of peaceful resistance have historically been countered with violence from the side of those whose intent it was to preserve the status quo. There exists, however, no nonviolent or violent intent in lawbreaking.
Common topics in this essay:
David Thoreau,
Declaration Conscience,
Act Declaration,
,
civil disobedience,
Vietnam War,
David Dellinger,
Furthermore Declaration,
Vietnam According,
United Vietnam,
United Thoreau's,
declaration conscience,
act civil,
act civil disobedience,
signed declaration,
disobedience lawbreaking,
civil disobedience lawbreaking,
attention unjust,
lawbreaking civil disobedience,
lawbreaking civil,
unjust law,
benefit society,
civilly disobedient,
attention unjust law,
purpose civil disobedience,
|
Acceptance Essays
