Historically, in your opinion, has civil disobedience been effective in changing the law? Explain why or why not. What laws do you disagree with or would you consider violating to change? Explain The act of knowingly breaking a law that one feels is morally or ethically unjust is termed Civil Disobedience. While we all have a perception of right and wrong, the guideline for this thinking is our moral compass. While many individuals may see inequalities or injustices in our society, only a few make a physical stand for what they perceive to be right. Some discourage the use of civil disobedience as a tool that should be used for change, the logic being that it directly contradicts our nation’s democratic system. Others support the peaceful act of protesting or challenging laws that are unjust. It is my opinion that while technically breaking the law, it is necessary as it brings immediate attention to an unjust law. As Martin Luther King Jr. stated and I quote “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” Perfect examples of civil disobedience used to change laws are the Ms. Rosa Parks incident, as well as the prolonged civil rights movement initiated by Dr. King. While the above mentioned incidents of civil disobedience assisted in bringing attention to and ultimately changing unjust laws, this change was slow and not complete. One of the laws that I do not agree with is pertaining to parental rights. I feel that in the courts of law in regards to custody and parenting responsibilities, the father always gets the short end of the stick. Never have I seen things being fair and just, unless in the uncommon circumstance where the mother is clearly not fit to be a parent. In many cases the mother has custodial rights, but the child or...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document