Civil disobedience in the mind of Socrates Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay Civil disobedience is a practice that has been studied and exhibited for thousands of years. This practice is defined as “the refusal to obey certain laws or government requests for the purpose of influencing legislation or government policy” (1). It is a form of peaceful protest based on the idea that if a movement arises solely from refusal to obey the law, the government will be weakened and will therefore have to listen to the people and change the law accordingly. This idea can be seen in many literary works, and perhaps one of the most famous instances where this idea is contemplated is in Plato's Apology and Crito. Throughout these works, it is evident that Socrates does not believe that civil disobedience is permissible under any circumstances, which can be seen through his defense before the jury in the Apology and his actions in Crito. Civil disobedience is a widely controversial idea discussed in many literary works. For centuries, many people have used this powerful tool to create immense change in the government that controls them. If used correctly, disobedience to the law can be an eye-opener for any government, and to restore the structure of the government, the law would be changed to suit the needs of its constituents. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dedicated his entire life to using this practice to gain civil rights for African Americans. He led a powerful movement in which thousands of protesters held peaceful demonstrations to make their voices heard. Although they faced a violent opposition movement driven by the need to end any possibility of civil justice for all Americans, they were able to assert their message through simple acts and get the attention of their government. This peaceful movement eventually led to a huge breakthrough in civil rights for African Americans. However, Dr. King made a key point in distinguishing the differences between civil disobedience and actual ambition for change. It is important to understand that civil disobedience and the need for change are not synonymous with each other. This idea is explored in Letters from Birmingham Jail, in which Dr. King wrote to members of the clergy. One may desire to change an injustice in government without participating in breaking the law. Conversely, you can break the law without wanting the change and without considering the effects it might have on your government. This idea is represented through the idea of ​​“white moderates,” which Dr. King describes as people who see a problem or injustice with the law and want change, but do not participate in the civil disobedience necessary to create that change. This idea can be applied to Socrates and his stance against civil disobedience. Looking at the Apology, we can see that Socrates wanted change. His defense consisted almost entirely of criticism of the Athenian government. Therefore, he did not believe that the Athenian government was completely justified, or even believed that he should be convicted of the charges against him. In Dr. King's eyes, Socrates fell into the same category as "white moderates." Socrates wanted change, could tell right from wrong, and took issues he had with the government before his jury. However, when his sentence was announced, he fully accepted it as law and did nothing to escape his fate. Therefore, he could not participate in disobediencecivil because it was morally wrong, and he felt that following the law was more important, even if it's not right. This idea is further developed in Crito, which is the discussion between Socrates and his old friend, Crito, while he is being held prisoner before his execution. Throughout this dialogue, Socrates' position on civil disobedience is further discovered and it becomes clear that Socrates does not support the practice of civil disobedience under any circumstances. This dialogue takes place at dawn before Socrates is executed. He was convicted by the Athenian jury, and Socrates fully accepted his punishment, even though he did not agree with the charges. Crito begs Socrates to escape from his cell before the execution because the sentence was not justified. Although Socrates could easily escape his fate, he chooses not to. This is an important idea to distinguish Socrates' position on civil disobedience. Although Socrates believes that change is needed for the Athenian government and clearly expresses this idea to the jury, he does not follow his beliefs through his actions. Therefore, he is comparable to “white moderates,” where Socrates wants change, but does not participate in the actions necessary to provide the means for that change. Even though Crito begs and argues with Socrates in order to escape death, Socrates is firm about his decision. He believes it is morally wrong to go against the law, knowing that this would weaken the central government. It expresses the idea that by choosing to live in a governed place, you are morally responsible to follow the law of the land. Both Dr. King and Socrates express the idea of ​​natural law and the rights that humans have at birth. What is different between the two is that Dr. King thrives on civil disobedience and uses the benefits of this practice to gain civil rights for African Americans. On the other hand, Socrates believes in these natural rights, or truths, but believes that it is more important to follow the law that governs you. Where Dr. King believes it is morally right to fight for justice at any cost, Socrates feels morally obligated to follow the law. While there is some truth in the obligation to follow the law that governs you, I disagree with Socrates' position on civil disobedience. I believe that to bring about real change it is necessary to disobey the law that constitutes an injustice to one's natural rights. Although Socrates took a stand by accepting his punishment, there was no change in government resulting from his actions. However, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement through peaceful protests. Although it was a long process and many protesters were tempted to become violent when forced by police or citizens who believed in white supremacy, they were able to make real change. I disagree with Socrates on the idea that following the law, even when that law is unjust, is morally right. I believe that protecting one's natural law, or human rights, is morally justified. Taking action to change government policy to create law based on what is right for every citizen within that domain is an obligation to all people. A government is made up of ordinary people, who can make mistakes. Both members of Congress and juries make mistakes and misjudgments, and it is not the citizens' obligation to follow every law that is put into effect. Laws are a crucial part of creating a functioning government. However, it is the duty of those who live in that domain to understand the diversity of all who live there. A government should be just and equitable, and civil disobedience is a vital practice for. 2016.