Free Post 1--Matt Brennan

Studying Political Science, I have taken a special interest in the philosophy and theory behind law, and over the past year or so I have twice studied briefly the subject of civil disobedience, and find it to be a very interesting concept in order to achieve great change for society when liberties are in jeopardy. In this time the question has arose, do you think the Civil Rights Movement would have been effective as it was without civil disobedience.
There are two definitions of civil disobedience that I found particularly compelling. First, “A refusal by a group of people to obey laws or pay taxes, as a peaceful way of expressing their disapproval of those laws or taxes in order to persuade the government to change them” (Cambridge Dictionary). And the second is his John Rawls defines civil disobedience: “A public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government polices” (Stanford Encyclopedia). These definitions outline a stark difference compared to official disobedience. Disobedience without the presence of civility is characterized by chaos, violence, and lawlessness. The effect of this often goes nowhere. I believe in making an effort to make change, it needs to be done so in a stand up, class act, respectable way. I personally would not want to support or follow a change that is put in place by a reckless outlaw. For this reason, I do not believe the Civil Rights Movement would have been nearly as effective without civil disobedience and its supporters.