Category: Civil Disobedience

Introduction

Crito’s apology is an essay done by Socrates, a Greek philosopher; where he seeks to express truthfully his beliefs. His apology, which is rather a statement, is viewed as one full of meaning and truth as he addresses his close friend, Crito. Socrates is a critical thinker who is dedicated to moral character and he questioned the beliefs of the youths in Athens who trusted in opinions which were not necessarily true.

Socrates got a death sentence out of his political activities, which apparently corrupted the youth and the religious practices. The apology details how his disciples tried to aid his escape from prison and how Socrates brought up an argument on whether it was a good idea as he worried too much about the repercussions (Kemerling, 2006).

Thoreau Civil Disobedience is the work of Henry David Thoreau who was a nature enthusiast. He wrote the essay titled ‘civil disobedience’, which won many politicians hearts. This essay seeks to find out why people of a state will subscribe to unjust governance without complaining. Thoreau exercised disobedience when he refused to pay poll tax whose returns offered support to the slave trade and the Mexican war, which he so detested and this led to his imprisonment (McElroy, 2005).

This case study seeks also to compare and contrast between the essay for Critos apology and Thoreau civil disobedience and stage a personal argument.

Similarities between the Critos apology and Thoreau’s civil disobedience

Both essays are associated with the way their governments of the day used to function and they also seek to change the mindsets of the people though at different levels. Socrates wants the people to be submissive to the government while Thoreau warns the people who follow the laws of the state blindly even if they are infringing on their own rights and they do not reflect what is right in their own view.

Thoreau and Crito’s essays believe in morality of human beings. They feel that human beings have the moral authority to be just if given the chance. They feel that no human being would want to default knowingly and it is sad that people still commit injustices even armed with a moral conviction. (Term papers, 2005).

The other striking similarity with these two essays is their writing while these history makers were in jail. Thoreau’s incarceration resulted from disobeying the laws of the land and it was while in jail that he wrote the ‘civil disobedience’ essay. Socrates was also in jail serving a term awaiting the death penalty for corrupting the youth and discrediting the state preferred religion when he wrote the apology (Term paper, 2005).

In both essays, we have philosophers who sought to bring change through defiance. In the apology, Socrates is seen as a highly ethical man who sought to interrogate and discuss the laws before subscribing to them and he questions them and engages youths in discussions where they dissect the stated laws (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (a).

In Thoreau’s civil disobedience essay, the same concerns surface as Thoreau seeks to disobey the laws he does not believe in. He does not find sense when he is supposed to subscribe to laws that do not appeal to him just because the government passed them. His defiance when it comes to paying tax strikes a similarity with Socrates questioning of the laws, which is appealing to the high officials (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (b).

In both the essays, Socrates and Thoreau find themselves on the wrong side of the law for failure to conform to the later. Socrates incarceration emanates from crimes of corrupting the youth among other crimes against religion. Thoreau’s incarceration on the other hand comes from failing to pay tax, which he believes goes into fueling wars and slave trades, things he campaigns against strongly (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (b).

Contrast between the Crito’s apology and Thoreau civil disobedience essays

Thoreau’s civil disobedience essay is against the government whereas Socrates’ Critio’s apology is for the government. Thoreau felt that the government was an evil that the people did not need whereas Socrates felt that the government deserved obedience and this called for the people to be submissive to it. Thoreau even came up with a motto that stated that the best government was the one that governed the least. He also added that people were ought to embrace a government that respected their freedoms.

This he drove at showing that the absence of the government was what people needed to become successful. The striking difference in these two essays is that Thoreau is more rebellious when it comes to the government and he feels that the government is wrong and it must be subjected to criticism to review the laws that infringe on the people’s rights. On the other hand, Socrates shows devotion to the government of the day and is ready to give up everything to side with its decisions. (Term papers, 2005).

While Socrates exercises compassion for the government and seems ready to do anything for it, Thoreau loathes the government and this hatred exceeds when he is jailed for an offence he considers minor. After release from jail, Thoreau does not reform and spreads the word on disobedience influencing the masses to revolt against the government. Socrates goes ahead to loose his life through a death penalty as the government is adamant to see things go its way.

Thoreau’s civil disobedience essay is more realistic as compared to Crito’s apology in that it was rebellious and this set up a revolution to implement the changes that people wanted to see. Crito’s apology on the other hand is more unrealistic in that its primary goal was to ensure that the same views on the government were shared. It did not leave room for an argumentative debate where people would stand on their own ground voicing their own views (Term paper, 2005).

Another contrast presents itself from these essays where the Crito apology insinuates that the people of a country are in an agreement with their government. The kill here is that they abide by the laws set by the government and the government in turn protects them.

Thoreau’s essay on civil disobedience tends to differ by saying that the people of a country do not have to agree with what the government has laid down for them if it is unjust. He feels that rebellion to bad laws is important and people do not have to put up with bad governance as this makes them hypocrites (Term paper, 2005).

Socrates and Thoreau are two people with the same concerns about their governments but they bring out their concerns in a disparate way. This is dictated by their beliefs and social standing which makes them trend in different paths. Greece, which is Socrates origin, matches great men with honor and lesser men with shame.

This limits Socrates’ ambitions no matter how much he advocated for truth as depicted in the Crito’s apology and he fears to come out of the person he is, as he fears the repercussions of doing so. His friends even organize his escape but his worry about what people will say stops him in his tracks. He is also worried that he will loose his social standing by doing such a thing and sees himself being treated as an outcast (123helpme, 2010).

On the other hand, Thoreau is a strong man who is not afraid to voice his opinions and embrace the repercussions that emanate from it. Thoreau believes in self-conviction rather than social conviction and this shows why he is not moved by the masses but by what he feels and believes is right.

He feels that individuals have a right to choose what is wrong and right and act accordingly regardless of what the law says about it. He does not believe in the public’s opinion of his actions and therefore discards things such as honor, punishment, and shame as ridiculous (123helpme, 2010)

Case study argument

Both Socrates and Thoreau were justified in their concerns about the government. However, in my opinion, I feel that Thoreau’s stand in his philosophies would have brought about a lot of harm than good. It would have opened up to a permissive society where there is no order and no one cares what people do.

When he talks of the people not needing a government, I feel that he is loosing practicality since for a government to run smoothly, there has to be set rules and repercussions for the lawbreakers. Socrates takes sides with the government and gives us a picture of a state where the government takes center stage. According to Socrates, the government must be obeyed and the laws have to be followed to the later whether they are good or bad.

Thoreau seeks to differ with Socrates saying that people do not have to submit to bad governance and they have every right to abscond what is not right. In his personal experience, Thoreau refused to pay poll tax as he personally felt that the government used the revenue to support the Mexican war and slave trade, which he was opposed to. For this reason, he was incarcerated though he was released a day later as family members bailed him out.

I feel that Socrates was more rational in his judgment about his government and all it needed was for the people to obey the laws it had laid down for them. In his views, Socrates felt that the government brought order and this in the long run translated to better and civilized lives for its people. Thoreau was more bent on individual success and advocated for individuality and in my view this philosophy would not have augured well with many loyal citizens of the state.

He kept seeing the government as a block to the success of its citizens through laws, which he termed, as infringements. For him to advocate that people do what is right is immoral in the sense that not all what seems right to us is right for everyone. For instance, someone would feel that acts of terrorism are okay and go ahead to implement it because it is what he wants to do and believes that it is right to him.

In my opinion, this is utterly ridiculous because we live in a diverse world which has become a melting pot for all cultures. We therefore have to be governed by laws that dictate how we conduct ourselves to avert such commotions, which would result from a permissive society. I therefore feel that Thoreau’s philosophies were wrong and they should not have seen the light of day.

Conclusion

Both Socrates and Thoreau had strong thesis on what an ideal people-government relationship should be like. They however had their shortcomings in either way, as some were too extreme and other just ridiculous. Their contrast brings about an interesting factor of civil obedience on the part of the Crito’s apology done by Socrates and civil disobedience as portrayed by Thoreau. We see that Socrates worst fear was what the society would say and he could not stand shame and dishonor.

The rebellious Thoreau feared no societal criticism and all he cared about was what he felt was right for him. They both ended up in jail as punishment for their misdeeds and the irony is overwhelming. Socrates was however more practical as compared to Thoreau who gave ideas of a lawless society which would have caused more harm than good.

References

Kemerling, G. (2006). Socrates (469-399 B.C.E). NY: Routledge.

McElroy, W. (2005). Henry Thoreau and civil disobedience. Future of freedom Foundation. Vol (87).9-9.

SparkNotes Editors. (2010) (a). SparkNote on The Apology. Web.

SparkNotes Editors. (2010) (b). SparkNote on Civil Disobedience. Web.

Term papers. (2005). Socrates versus Thoreau. Web.

123HelpMe (2010). Comparing Thoreau and Socrates. Web.

Introduction

Civil Disobedience is the act of disobeying a law on grounds of moral or political principle. It is an attempt to influence society to accept a dissenting point of view. Although it usually uses tactics of nonviolence, it is more than mere passive resistance since it often takes active forms such as illegal street demonstrations or peaceful occupations of premises.

The classic treatise on this topic is Henry David Thoreau’s “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” which states that when a person’s conscience and the laws clash, that person must follow his or her conscience. The stress on personal conscience and on the need to act now rather than to wait for legal change are recurring elements in civil disobedience movements. The U.S. Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people to alter or abolish it.

Good Samaritan: 9/11 First Responders

The acts of random kindness are not performed due to legal issues or threat of punishment in case of refusing to help those who are in need. The process of acting in accordance with Good Samaritan principles can be considered one of the types of human behavior not pertaining to the legal actions, law enforcement, or threat of punishment.

One of the examples of Good Samaritan act includes 9/11 First Responders which concerns the people that found it necessary to help those who suffered from the terrorist attack September 11, 2001. When a lot of people were panicking and did not know what to do, these brave men acted as heroes though nobody asked them to risk their lives and help get the victims out of debris of the ruined buildings.

Good Samaritan: Katrina and Haiti

The nature can be beautiful and destructive at the same time due to its power that people are not able to fight. However, some catastrophes bring disasters and ruination of buildings, living areas, and leave thousands of people without a place to live in. This concerns the hurricanes that made people homeless. The hurricane Katrina ruined the coast of the United States of America in 2005 though many people appeared to act as Good Samaritans and helped people to save their lives from the effects of natural disaster.

The earthquakes bring another terrible natural disaster that cannot be predicted on time and people cannot get prepared for losses. The Haiti 2010 earthquake brought a lot of devastation and made thousands of people homeless. At the same time thousands of people died in that disaster. I would certainly help people in the case of any disaster because I know that such thing can happen to anyone and I would be glad to receive any support even from strangers.

Acts of Vigilantism: Committee of Vigilance in San Francisco

A Committee of Vigilance that operated in San Francisco in 1851 (Stewart, 1964) and 1856 (O’Meara, 2009) was one of the first documentary recorded examples of acts of vigilantism that was used to enforce the law. As such, people that committed some crimes but were not sentenced to death in the court underwent the procedure of vigilantism when people punished them in their way.

Violation of laws to enforce the law was used by citizens to make the streets safer and get rid of criminals to establish the law. I do not believe that establishment and enforcement of law is possible through its violation though I think that some people should be punished regardless of bribes and conspiracies. As for the people in that organization, they had no other way to establish order in the city.

Vigilantism: A Vigilante of 1980s and Ranch Rescue

Bernhard Goetz in 1984 was saving his life and property from the four men that were trying to robber him in the subway train but he prevented them and killed them with the firearm he illegally possessed. This was one of the examples of vigilantism in criminal New York in 1980s when people suffered from criminal acts whereas police were ineffective. I believe that acting in this way has its advantages as well as disadvantages because a person can save his/her life but the society would criticize this action as highly unconstitutional or lawless.

The beginning of the twenty-first century in the states of the USA that share the border with Mexico was marked with the rise of The organization or movement that consists of ordinary people, who live there and want to protect themselves from the illegal aliens who damage their property while crossing the borders illegally. As the authorities do nothing to protect civil citizens, they try to protect themselves as they can. If I noticed some aliens on my property, I would do something to protect from the invasion because it is my constitutional right.

Civil Disobedience: Rosa Parks and Wisconsin Collective Bargaining

Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. Peaceful demonstrations as well as Some of the most well known of these are the following:

Rosa Parks was one of the first black people who made an act of civil disobedience when she refused to give her seat in the bus, as required by contemporary rules and regulations, to a white passenger. Though she was the first, her action draw a wide response in society and gave rise to the increase of population awareness of their intended rights and the fight for their rights; this was one of the actions that contributed greatly to the development of movement for rights of black people in the United States and, later, in other countries of the world.

Another case that can be labeled as Wisconsin Collective Bargaining is the peaceful demonstration that took place in March 2011 near Wisconsin Capitol where tens of thousands of public workers and their supporters were demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the decision to deprive them of almost all rights as workers related to collective bargaining (Caisley, 2007). Peaceful demonstrations may be effective only if they receive wide response in society and lead to changes adopted in laws and regulations.

Civil Disobedience: Suit Against Arizona Immigration Law

If the police officers in Arizona suspect someone of not having the legal basis for being in the country, they can ask the person to show the immigration documents, if any. This is not a plot of a new movie on rights of immigrants where the only law abiding citizens tries to protect the rights in accordance with principles of justice. A new law called SB 1070 was passed in Arizona to entitle the police officers to verify the immigration status of people they suspect of being illegal immigrants.

The acts of civil disobedience were observed in New York where 16 people were arrested due to participation in peaceful demonstration. Sometimes, demonstrations and controversial acts are not treated appropriately; “Our traditional approach to controlling crime seems more comfortable when addressing familiar criminal behavior in such areas as burglary, robbery, and assault” (Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy, 2008, p. 347).

Violation of Ethical Standards: Unethical Teaching

As suggested in the study by Braswell, McCarthy & McCarthy (2008), “People who know they are being watched often act differently, especially when unethical, deviant, or criminal behaviors are involved” (p. 395). As such, unethical behavior involves violation of ethical standards that are important components of some professions.

Though the case discussed in the article by Mokgosi, Kgosidialwa, and Dube (2011) focuses more on the use of Ritalin, the authors also dwell on unethical behavior by teachers in Botswana concerning poorly-achieving students that should be approached in a specific way. I think that it is more appropriate for health care professionals to decide whether a student is stupid while the educator should support the student and help him/her achieve the best results.

Unethical Behavior: Negligence or Sexual Harassment?

Mayra Cabrera had delivered a son Zac in 2004 though she cannot see him growing up because she died the same day because of the heart attack. Her death was the result of the nursing negligence that is treated as the unethical and highly unprofessional behavior which, in this case, led to death of an innocent person. I do not believe that an experienced nurse that makes epidural anesthesia can make such a fatal mistake as injecting the wrong drug. The hospital administration should be more attentive with qualification of their staff members.

One of the largest and well-known companies in the world Hewlett-Packard lost its CEO due to his involvement into sexual harassment. Mark Hurd had to resign because he violated the sexual harassment policy established in the company to protect its employees from inappropriate conduct of senior. Colleagues (PTI, 2010). I think that resigning is the best way to avoid ruined reputation while many people try to keep their position and remain the target of criticism.

Important Values: What Are They?

I believe that health, safety, and family are the most important values from the suggested list; especially, it is important to know that all the members of your family are in safety and are healthy. The only similarity that can be seen between my values and values important for the group includes family while other important values for the group are honesty because a person should be honest with him-/herself and others and friendship because a person who has good friends and can be a good friend to somebody is powerful.

The least important values for me are risk because I believe that we should assess the possible benefits and exclude any risk, religion is not important for me because I think that this should not be the value that influences people’s decisions taking into account the historic experience of Crusades when Christian soldiers massacred peaceful settlements of Muslims. Another unimportant value for me is the pleasure because just actions are not always pleasant.

The group agrees with me concerning the pleasure; other unimportant values for the group are wealth because a wise healthy man who has friends is already wealthy and recognition because a person confident in his/her beliefs does not need acknowledgement.

Family and safety are the values similar for actors, me, and group; recognition is the similar least important value for the actors and group.

Values for Law Offenders and Good Samaritans

9/11 First Responders, Katrina, Haiti – altruism and duty were the major values that influenced the actors in these cases as people wanted to help strangers; friendship and family are also possible values because they helped their families as well;

Committee of Vigilance – justice and safety – as actors wanted to make the city safer and reach the justice;

Bernhard Goetz and Ranch Rescue – safety; in case of Ranch Rescue, some patriotism and duty may be traced because they defend their property;

Rosa Parks – honesty and independence – as she wanted to show that they are independent and should enjoy equal rights with white population;

Wisconsin Collective Bargaining and Suit Against Arizona – justice – to make sure that they get their rights back;

Unethical Teaching, Mayra Cabrera, HP Unethical Conduct – power – as power abuse was the major crime in these cases.

The least important values for Good Samaritans are recognition; for vigilantes – altruism was the least important value; for civil disobedience actors – power was the least important value; for unethical actors – knowledge, duty, and justice were the least important values.

Conclusion

Good Samaritan law should not be the basis for all jurisdictions because it is more pertaining to moral side of behavior rather than to something legal. If a person can help others, he/she should do that, especially in critical situations. I happened to bring the cat down from the tree though I do not think that it is a Good Samaritan-like behavior. When people try to use me, I refuse to help them because they ask for help not because they are in need but because they are too lazy to do something on their own.

Vigilantism should not be permitted when criminal system fails though self-defense is the concept that should be widely supported. If vigilantism is permitted, it will reflect ineffectiveness of laws whereas vigilantism in current conditions would only enforce the law. I would violate the law if I have to protect myself or my family from illegal actions, assault, or other misdemeanor.

Civil disobedience was effective historically in changing the law not because separate case of civil disobedience was effective but due to the echo of those actions in public and support received from different segments of population. I think the laws that contradict the common sense should be violated.

Commission of unethical behavior is often related to power abuse or criminal negligence in the various professions, other than criminal justice professions. For instance, a teacher can offend students because they are threatened by his/her authority and perspective of poor grades. I do not believe that American society is the only one that has cases of unethical behavior o it is not disposed to unethical behavior. To reduce ethical violations among professionals, it is necessary to make the corporate policies that establish the rules of ethical conduct in organizations more strict and more related to criminal liability.

Reference List

Braswell, M. C., McCarthy, B. R., & McCarthy, B. J. (2008). Justice, crime, and ethics (6th edition). Newark, NJ: Lexis Nexis.

Caisley, K. T. (2007). Collective bargaining. Auckland: CCH New Zealand Limited.

Mokgosi, L., Kgosidialwa, D. R., & Dube, T. (2011). Do our students need drugs to learn? Mmegi Online, 28(57). Web.

O’Meara, J. (2009). The Vigilance Committee of ’56. Teddington, Middlesex: Echo Library.

PTI. (2010). HP chief quits amid allegations of sexual harassment. Web.

Stewart, G. R. (1964). Committee of Vigilance: revolution in San Francisco, 1851. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

In his article “Civil Disobedience”, Henry David Thoreau deals with his vision of justice in Massachusetts. He is worried about so many problems that exist in the system of law and the justice of the state. He calls out his audience to act against the government to help the afflicted people gain abolition and other freedoms. In this essay, I aim to review his article to find important issues regarding injustice and its implications in.

At the beginning of his argument, Thoreau states that some laws in the country are extremely ghastly, and they do nothing else, but bring great pains and problems to the citizens of the country (Thoreau 184). So, he urges the audience to disobey the government and become rebels against such idle-headed regulations. He says that people act foolishly when they decide to be patient, and tolerate less than even-handed treatment. Thoreau proposes to follow the examples of cool dudes from the past such as Copernicus, Luther, Washington, and Franklin (Thoreau 185). He explains that even though these great guys were seen as rebels and rioters by their contemporaries, at the end of the day, they became heroes. Today, no one remembers those who opposed Copernicus, Luther, Washington, Franklin, and the other enlighteners, but many people do remember mutineers.

In the main part of the argument, the author is talking about all sorts of different examples of evil laws that bring nothing but harm to the nation. When he splits the log of a bad law, he asks: “why on earth should we obey the government that makes traps to its people?” And he answers this question by stating that there are no reasons for this. On the contrary, he concludes that it is better to resist the government like this, and do one’s best to cut up this government along with its laws. He even takes notice of the fact that the law endorsement system makes no efforts to protect people against evil. Nothing, no slightest fact or evidence, no faintest hint exists to identify at least some small effort by the government to protect people against the wickedness that exists in the world. Instead, the government only wants to promote its own interests. So, there is nothing strange in disobeying this kind of regime. More than this, God himself wants to punish this government, and this is one more reason to go ahead and slay these terrible people who claim to be the representatives of justice on the earth (Thoreau 186).

In the final part of his argument, Thoreau addresses the most silver-tongued example of an awful injustice by the government which is in protecting slaveholders and making corresponding laws that help them in committing this evil. He says that honest people must raise and punish those disgusting offenders of law and justice.

All things considered, Thoreau’s main point in this article is in the necessity of overthrowing the government that promotes evil laws. His argument raises many issues regarding justice, the protection of justice, and the validity of the actions of those who rebel against the government that advocates wickedness. The implications of these issues are well represented by the author in different parts of the article. They can be seen in the cases of the law on private property, the law on slavery favoritism, and the law on collecting taxes.

References

Thoreau, Henry David. “Civil Disobedience”. Justice (n. d.): 184-186. Print.

In the past, violence was often used as a means of bringing changes to the society, and even now such a strategy is perceived as something can be morally justified. In the course of its history, the United States also passed through periods when violent actions appealed to many people who tried to eradicate different forms of injustice such as slavery.

In his famous essay Civil Disobedience, Henry Thoreau describes the actions of a citizen who believes that a state is either unable or unwilling to serve people. This author is very cautious when he discusses the resistance to the state. In particular, he believes that there are cases when people have a moral right to “rebel and revolutionanize”¹.

However, he believes that it should be the last resort for people when they think that there is no other way of affecting the policies of a state. They should remember that it is usually not necessary to rely on brutal force, when a person tries to express his/her disagreement with the policies of political leaders.

Overall, it is possible to argue that violence cannot be regarded as a legitimate way of civil disobedience because it implies that an individual rejects the idea of law and dialogue between a person and the government. Such an approach will not bring sufficient improvements into the life of the community.

It should be noted that in his essay, Henry Thoreau openly criticizes the government of the United States. In particular, he pays close attention to the existence of slavery in the country and the legitimate status of this social phenomenon. This is why he believes that a person should act as “counter-friction to stop the machine” of cruelty and injustice. ²

From his point of view, it is immoral for a person to tolerate the existence of a political system that condones slavery. It is a duty of an individual to express his/her civil discontent. This argument is even more explicit when one speaks about Henry Thoreau’s defense of a famous rebel John Brown who took violent actions against slave-owners in the United States.

In Thoreau’s opinion, this person was a noble rebel, rather than a terrorist³ and his actions might have some ethical justifications. Therefore, one should not assume that this writer advocated only non-violent means of resistance. Such an assumption would be too idealistic and inaccurate. This is one of the main points that should be made.

Admittedly, Thoreau’s viewpoints concerning the vicious aspects of slavery were correct, but he was too radical when he considered the possibility to use violence to fight various social wrongs. This view of civil disobedience can be dangerous.

The problem is that in the course of history even the noblest intentions of individuals could turn into violence and bloodshed that can be extremely devastating. This argument is particular important when one speaks about French and Russian revolutions that lead to the creation of totalitarian and unjust regimes.

This is the main dangers that people should be aware of when they discuss different forms of civil disobedience. Their public protest must not involve violence because it may completely undermine the efforts of many activists.

It is important to remember about the cost of violent protest. Thousands of people should not die to make politicians think differently and try to address really important issues. More importantly, one should keep in mind that brutal force does not usually help people to develop rational solutions.

Therefore, even if people achieve their objectives through violence, it is not likely that they will create a well-functioning and just state. Thoreau also suggested that people did not have to pay taxes if they wanted to express their discontent. Nonetheless, this behavior could give rise to violence against citizens.

Refusal to pay taxes is regarded as a crime against the state itself, and it could result in a conflict between an individual and the state. In fact, this type of civil disobedience suggested by Thoreau can disrupt the dialogue between the community and the government.

On the whole, the idea of civil disobedience is still relevant to modern people who may not be content with the policies of the government. In his essay, Henry Thoreau attempts to describe the ways of public protests. It is possible to agree with the idea that an individual should not tolerate the existence of injustice.

Nevertheless, rebellion or revolution should not be regarded as a means of expressing disagreement. Very often, it can only bring bloodshed and violence, and in this way, one cannot create any improvements in the lives of people. Certainly, it is not permissible to tolerate the existence of corrupt governments or cruel laws in a society.

This argument is particularly relevant when one speaks about slavery. Nevertheless, people should find ways of expressing disagreement without violence.

Bibliography

Thoreau, Henry. Civil Disobedience. Boston: Hayes Barton Press, 2012.

Thoreau, Henry. A Plea For Captain John Brown. New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2012.

Footnotes

¹ Henry, Thoreau. Civil Disobedience. (Boston: Hayes Barton Press, 2012), p. 5

² Ibid. p. 9

³ Henry, Thoreau. A Plea For Captain John Brown. (New York: Kessinger Publishing, 2012), p. 7.

Laws are the framework within which man is judged for their actions and adequately charged if they violate them. However, there are specific laws that citizens may consider unfair or unjust and thus refuse to obey. Mahatma Gandhi’s walk from Ahmedabad to Dandi in response to unfair British imposed taxes on homegrown salt is an admirable form of civil disobedience aimed at ending colonialism and exposing unjust rule.

Under British rule, India maintained a lucrative salt production industry in the 19^th century. The nation had strict laws preventing independent commercial sales by Indians and demanded they pay a premium for imported salt (Venkatraman 15). Mahatma Gandhi confronted the salt laws using non-violent means by first penning a letter to Viceroy Lord Irwin. Therein he communicated a philosophy that insists on truth above all else, dubbed satyagraha (Venkatraman 2). Gandhi’s walk dawned on March 12^th, after the lack of a formal British response. He handpicked a group of 78 followers to walk for roughly 240 miles to the Arabian beachside at Dandi, where he arrived on April 5^th and openly harvested salt in defiance of British law by handpicking a lump of mud on the beach (Venkatraman 19). The act signified the end of salt laws and allowed Indians to harvest saltwater and produce salt locally.

In conclusion, Gandhi’s salt walk was an act of civil disobedience occurring in India in the 19^th century. Mahatma protested unfair salt laws imposed by staging a peaceful walk from his hometown in Ahmedabad to Dandi. His plan was successful because Indian citizens acquired the right to sell salt independently and produce supplies for home use. The abolition of the salt laws also crucially set India down a path of independence from British rule.

Work Cited

Venkatraman, V. “Salt Satyagraha: The Preventive Measures and Counter Propaganda of the British in the Madras Presidency, 1930 – 1931.”SSRN Electronic Journal, vol. 1, ser. 1, 2018, pp. 1–24. 1.