Is civil disobedience a morally acceptable way to fight social injustice? Does the end justify the means? Consider the practical implications of your answer.
Also, consider the meaning of the following quote in the context of the essay:
"After the first blush of sin comes its indifference; and from immoral it becomes, as it were, unmoral, and not quite unnecessary to that life which we have made." rewrite this sentence in your own words.
I believe that civil disobedience is a morally acceptable way to fight social injustice. Especially with the situation mentioned in Thoreau's speech, fighting would just be contradicting in fighting social injustice and doing nothing would not be effective either. The end does justify the means when looking back on something. For example, as a result of the Civil War slavery ended and that justified the means of why the war happened. An example of how the end does not justify the means is the war we're in in Iraq. Bush's "means" to enter Iraq to stop the weapons of mass destruction. The end result was us having to make up a new reason why we are in Iraq now because Bush's information was incorrect.
ReplyDeleteAfter the first mention of sin it becomes unimportant and because of that lack of importance it becomes immoral to ignore it because that sin was unmoral and does have importance to what is accepted in the society we have created.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf you find a government's laws unjust then to you civil disobedience is morally justified. You are following your own set of morals as a way of fighting social injustice, but the only problem is that if everyone uses civil disobedience as a means of resistance then when a new government needs to be set up it would be difficult to agree on what is morally right. The ends do justify the means if in the end the goal of creating a less corrupt government has been achieved.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion the quote is saying that it is only natural to make mistakes so often at first sight we ignore them, but to ignore an immoral sin is unmoral, because they are necessary to us in a life where we learn from our mistakes and base our own moral code on what is deemed wrong and right.
Civil disobedience is a moral acceptable way to fight social injustice, as Thoreau said, it's people's constitutional right to feel differently from the laws and don't accept them. It's natural and understood that people will do something different to show their stance and opinions, for example, if people don't want to see their tax be spent on something they think is wrong, they have the reason to refuse taxation. However, only civil disobedience is not enough to change the status quo and make changes. Because it's a rather passive mean to contend for morality, and the consequence is very likely for one to be put in jail and lose his ability and chance to do anything further. Yes, the majority can be immoral, but they still have the power in hands,and under the circumstances where the authority standing at a higher position and it's so much easy for him to control you. Even you and other thousand people refuse to pay tax, as a authority and ruler, the government can still get money from else where to make up the lose from you, and it can do whatever it wants to make you surrender. However, this is not to say then we should stop doing so and obey the authority, since the goal is good and moral, we have no reason to give up. But such way is definitely not enough to achieve the goal. If people don't want to pay tax,they can only bring troubles to themselves than make a change. Those people should unite and protest, because individual civil obedience is too weak to make a strike and let people see it. Otherwise, those Occupy Wall Street protesters will not encamp everywhere but rather stay at home and ignore all tax bill. Also, take another real situation in life as an example, lights out at 11 p.m. at Cheshire Academy, which is wrong to be a rule and impossible and unpractical for a high school student. It's wrong to force someone sleep at 11, especially most of students have a pretty clear mind to work and study. It's wrong to coerce them to lie in bed with open eyes and waste time for being awake. And it's absolutely a big disruption for some night-studiers, for stirring up their way of life and biological clock. I can definitely arrange well with my own life style, and be efficient and healthy if I study til 1, and this is my principle and proper right which I must withhold. So if 95% of other Motter girls have the same thought with me, and they get up after lights out, and be caught, they can't do nothing but get warning and get their lap-tops or somethings they were working on taken away. Though the girls take turns to be caught, the same thing happens everyday, which is enough to show how wrong and fatuous the rule is. But such civil disobedience can't change anything, unless we unite together either have a protest or write letters to the headmaster asking changing rules. Otherwise, just wait and let the game of cat and mouse continue.
ReplyDeleteRephrase: If people are obedience to the laws or rules that are against their conscience, they either tolerate the rules or conform to them, the result is indifference and lose of immoral--since people get used to it, and they can't feel unmoral because it became a part of their life, which is a terrible situation.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteCivil disobedience is a morally acceptable way to fight social injustice to an extent because people have the right to not do something they do not agree with. However, many laws are just and logical, and should be followed, like laws concerning how people should be treated. If a person is going to practice civil disobedience, they should also try to change what they disagree with, instead of just refusing to cooperate with the government. Civil disobedience is generally non-violent. The end does justify the means because a better government will be formed.
ReplyDeleteI think the quote is saying that after you do something wrong for the first time, you become indifferent, and keeping doing things that are wrong because you no longer care that what you're doing is bad. Society kind of needs people to do bad things so people can learn from their mistakes and fix them.
I think that in certain cases, civil disobedience is more than acceptable. However, this is a very dangerous and slippery slope that can lead to crime everywhere. There are many cases that I believe are justified to break the laws to make a point. I do not believe that we as people should be forced to follow laws that are clearly immoral and unjust. However, this does not work for all. People could break laws and claim that the are unjust. Someone could be charged with murder and say that they digit because they felt the law was unjust. This is something that we should not allow to happen. However, for the most part, I am okay with people breaking laws that deny justice to a group of people.
ReplyDeleteThe quote is saying that at first, people may ignore a sin. However, we must not let it be ignored for too long, or it will become engrained in our culture and our society. It is okay with letting it go the first time, but not over and over again.
I believe Civil Disobedience is the typical type of moral way to fight social injustice. Thoreau prefers not to use violence way to rebel against the government that he does not want to obey and when he doesn’t agree with the laws, it is not necessary to follow those laws, as long as laws are unjust. At this situation especially, since the laws are not applied equally to each individual and he personally believes that what government doing is not right, Civil Disobedience movement is accepted. The end definitely justifies the means because government can be reformed to be better for the equality of each individual.
ReplyDeleteAfter the first sin, people will repeat it over and over again without noticing it, and ultimately people will become indifference to the repeating of the sins. As a result people will lose their morality and become immoral.
Civil disobedience is a rather grey area to me. The whole idea of civil disobedience says to go against the law, but in doing that you're breaking the law, which in turn tells other people its okay to break the law. So in which case does that mean people who break the law are performing civil disobedience? And should we be placing ourselves on that level of protests to any degree? So it is kind of apparent how far the idea of civil disobedience can go. Is it moral? Hard to say, because what is moral is perspective. Any form of civil disobedience could be considered immoral, or moral depending on who sees it. If you are standing up for something, maybe. More so then in any other case. There are certain things, like occupy wall street, where people can sort of say they have the right to protest. But how far does protesting go? People have been killed in some of these riots all across the U.S? So are they really morally right then when their protesting creates violence? Sure the topic may be righteous but is it worth the damage? Avoiding conflict i don't think is necessarily the answer. But if you are going to break the system, you have to use the system to do it, and civl disobedience, I think, is not morally sound, the ends do not justify the means, and may not always be the way to fight injustice.
ReplyDeleteAs for the quote, I feel a translation would read: Sin creates indifference, which there for turns a set of bad morals neutral. And to fix bad morals is always useful. So in a way, he is almost saying sin is actually good in our life. (I think)
I do believe that civil disobedience is morally acceptable as a way to fight social injustice. Civil disobedience is not illegal and is a very fit way to voice your disapprovment of some social injustice. It is typically non-violent, and the level of someone's civil disobedience can be determined on the extremity of the social injustice. The end justifies the means because, whether or not the result is what was sought in the beginning, civil disobedience is not violent so would not hurt anyone if unsuccessful and if successful then it is very justifiable because the goal was accomplished. In Thoreau's speech the means would be justified if the government was successfully reformed.
ReplyDeleteAt the start of a sin, and particularly when it is smaller in size and or importance, it can be easy to forget or feel indifferent about. Then it develops to becoming immoral and "wrong" and then finally becomes such that it is part of one's life and May even dictate the process of things to come. In other words, it gets to the point that if you ignore it long enough it starts to dictate your life.
Jeff with a J: If civil disobedience has you disobeying the law - as Thoreau did - then it is illegal, no? Is there not the potential that civil disobedience could in fact hurt people, even though it is non-violent?
ReplyDeleteI was going to disagree and say that civil disobedience is not acceptable, but when reading what other classmates said, I agree with them saying that civil disobedience is acceptable. While I think if everyone uses civil disobedience, the world would be chaotic and not a wonderful world to live in, I also believe what Pat says when he says that you as a person are following your own set of morals. If everyone had the same set of morals then maybe it could be a different story, but that's not the case, that is basically having the same set of laws we have today. But I still think civil disobedience is acceptable because it is for the most part non-violent and a good way to fight government in a civil manner.
ReplyDeleteI think the quote is saying "the first time someone commits a sin, it is not really important to them, but since it was wrong of them to think it is unimportant that makes it immoral and people in the world accept that today, but I think people are supposed to learn from the mistakes that ignore or make.
I don’t think that a civil disobedience is a morally acceptable way to fight social injustice. A civil disobedience doesn’t help to fix a social injustice. It makes social injustice worse. Only one side of a civil disobedience seems to be reasonable way but actually the side effect from civil disobedience is hard for people to take. The reason that civil disobedience was acceptable is related with number of people who involved in civil disobedience. There was only a person who did civil disobedience so that only acceptable side was shown. If many people did civil disobedience, they would disorder society. Then, it becomes ridiculous because people made laws to make peaceful world but laws made people to disorder society.
ReplyDeleteA quote means that how people are indifferent and keep doing wrong things after they ignore their fault. However, people who are indifferent and keep doing wrong things are needed to others to get right way by fixing.
Mel: Do we all have the same set of morals? Are they common among different people? Across countries, cultures, and religions?
ReplyDeleteTo all: isn't it an assumed responsibility of any citizen - who is a part of a larger community, interacting with the community, reaping the benefits of the community - to adhere to the laws upon which that community has agreed, even if s/he doesn't agree with all of them? Can I pick and choose when I want to be a part of my community and when I want to free myself of the burden of my community's laws? I have a contract with my community that protects the possibility of a symbiotic relationship, one in which I benefit greatly, and in return, I must also contribute to that community. Isn't part of my contribution an adherence to a general set of rules in order to maintain peace and order?
ReplyDeleteIt is true for a citizen to interact with the community and always be in the community, finding a sense of belong to it, but he still can change slightly change the his own rule and have himself a self-reform to better fit his conscientious than a general law which he can't accept. It's all about finding a balance--where to break the rule and change it to fit oneself; no general rule fits perfectly to an individual but rather mass. I think people should always follow their heart and conscience, and do what they think is right. For example, during interbellum, international brigade was formed for those who felt moral to help fight in Spanish Civil War against fascism, even his country was opposed to intervene. People voluntarily joined the war for what they thought just and moral, and it was also their right and freedom to do so. However, it's not conflict with not being in the community even though he did something different. He was still the citizen of his country and had allegiance to other laws. And the rest of the country men could still stay in peace and order since the government decided not to mobilize officially.
ReplyDelete