Civil Disobedience
by Elizabeth Pitts

With civil disobedience, we are discussing government and the law, and if we should uphold laws, even when they are not morally right and how, if we are to go against the law, should we do that?  We should not have to obey laws that are unjust, but we also must look at each individual instance where injustice is occurring and carefully determine how to act.  Civil disobedience must remain civil and not become violent.  If disobedience becomes violent it does more harm than good, as people can get physically hurt.  Pacifists would say violence has a hardening effect (Singer 310).  Committing one violent act lessens the resistance to another violent act (Singer 310).  There are other arguments for specific types of violence, but we are talking about civil disobedience, not violent disobedience.

We must first discuss why we should obey laws to begin with.  Singer gives two arguments in favor of obeying laws.  He explains that first; people do not voluntarily refrain from hurting others so we need laws to deal with these matters.  Secondly, we must have some kind of machinery to deal with the lawbreakers (Singer 296).  Singer also reminds us that these two arguments for obeying law are neither universally applicable nor conclusive (Singer 297).  Civil disobedience itself can be viewed the same way.  It must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis.  There are rules as to what civil disobedience is, but there is no clear-cut universal answer in deciding to be civilly disobedient (Singer 297).  Civil disobedience is about purposefully disobeying a law or rule to make a point, to try and change laws and rules in a specific situation, and is disobedience that is executed in a non-violent manner.
 

Having characterized civil disobedience we can now discuss reasons for why people may act civilly disobedient.  Singer explains that there are reasons to obey established laws, and the reason to obey is stronger when the law is established in a democratic manner and represents a majority view.  However there are still situations in which using illegal means can be justified (Singer 302).  Why a person or group might protest a certain law is that they feel the decision or law does not, in fact, uphold the ideals of the majority.  To disobey the law also can be a way to inform the majority if the law is unjust (Singer 303).  As with most moral and ethical questions, the costs and benefits must be weighed in order to determine if acting is more moral than not acting.
 

The arguments against civil disobedience are that if people start disobeying laws, there could be a slippery slope effect and cause more and more unrest and soon no one would obey laws because every law might seem unjust to someone.  This possibility means that each individual case of civil disobedience must be thought of as just that; an individual case, not an example for disobeying all established law.  It would make sense then that another argument against civil disobedience is that it could easily stop being civil and become violent.  There seems to be enough unrest caused by defiance of law, even if it is civil, that violence seems to be the natural next step. Again this is why each case of civil disobedience must be carefully weighed to determine the benefits and consequences of the actions.  Civil disobedience is just that, civil, not violent.  There is also the argument that some people have raised, " it"s a law, so it must have been made a law for a good reason."   This seems acceptable enough on its face.  However, once a seemingly unimportant law, that does not affect you personally becomes a problem for you, personally, then it no longer seems like it was made a law for a good reason.  Therefore, as Thoreau stated, " law is equally liable to be abused" (Thoreau 1).  Because it is legislated does not make it right.  Singer also suggests that since we live in a democratic society, we should first try to exhaust legal means of resolving unjust issues.  He does admit, however that this is a slow and sometimes unsuccessful process.  This is another reason why people are left with civil disobedience as a sort of last resort without turning to violence.
 

What are ways we can protest while remaining civil?  Singer refers to " passive resistance, marches and sit-ins" as standard forms of civil disobedience (Singer 303).  There are some very famous cases of civil disobedience in which unjust laws were changed and society was changed for the better. Ghandi is known for his marches and fasting to relieve oppression of the people of India (Sevagram Ashram).  Martin Luther King is well known in the United States for fighting for civil rights for African-Americans using civilly disobedient means. Rosa Parks refused to give up her seat on the bus to a white man. I n all three of these cases, there was imprisonment as a consequence of being disobedient. However, having weighed that cost, these people were still successful in accomplishing social change.

Not all civil disobedience has to create change on a whole societal level. We can be disobedient on a much less provocative level to obtain justice in our own lives. We can do things that impact us on an individual level without seeking societal change, though that may be a positive consequence of our actions.  I refer to the State of Michigan Court of Appeals case, People v Pitts.  The published case begins this way: