Civil disobedience in the mind of SocratesSay no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the 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 requirements 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 occurs solely on refusal to obey the law, the government will weaken and therefore must 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 examples where this idea is considered is in Plato's Apologies and Crito. Throughout these works, it is evident that Socrates does not believe under any circumstances that civil disobedience is permissible, as evidenced by his defense before the jury in The Apologies and his actions taken in Crito. Civil disobedience is a very controversial idea that is discussed in many literary works. For centuries, many people have used this powerful tool to create immense change within the government that controls them. Used correctly, disobedience of the law can be an eye-opener for any government, and in order to restore the structure of government, the law would be changed to meet the needs of its constituents. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. dedicated his entire life to using this practice to achieve civil rights for African Americans. He led a powerful movement in which thousands of protesters demonstrated peacefully to make their voices heard. Although they faced a violent countermovement motivated by the need to end any chance of civil justice for all Americans, they managed to get their message across through simple acts and attract the attention of their government. This peaceful movement ultimately led to a huge leap forward 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. This idea is explored in Letters from Birmingham Jail, in which Dr. King writes to members of the clergy. One can have the desire to change an injustice in government without participating in breaking the law. On the contrary, one can break the law without wanting change and without considering the effects it may have on one's 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 desire change, but do not participate in the civil disobedience required to create that change. This idea can be applied to Socrates and his stance against civil disobedience. Looking at The Apologies, 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 in fact, he believed that they should be found guilty of the charges against them. In Dr. King's eyes, Socrates belonged in the same category as "white moderates." Socrates wanted change, he could tell right from wrong, and he addressed his problems with the government to his jury. However, when his sentence was announced, he fully accepted it as the law and did nothing to escapehis fate. Therefore, he could not participate in civil disobedience because it was morally wrong, and he felt that obeying the law was more important, even if it was 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 captive before his execution. Throughout this dialogue, Socrates' position on civil disobedience is further clarified that Socrates does not support the practice of civil disobedience in any way. This dialogue takes place at dawn, before Socrates is executed. He was found guilty by the Athenian jury and Socrates fully accepted his punishment, although he disagreed with the accusations. Crito begs Socrates to escape his cell before the execution because the sentence was not justified. Although Socrates could easily escape his fate, he chooses not to do so. This is an important idea in distinguishing Socrates' position on civil disobedience. Although Socrates believes that change is necessary for the Athenian government and clearly expresses this idea to the jury, he does not follow through on his beliefs through his actions. He is therefore comparable to “white moderates,” in whom Socrates desires change, but does not participate in the actions necessary to provide the means for that change. Although Crito pleads and argues with Socrates for him to escape death, Socrates remains firm on 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 are born with. What is different between the two is that Dr. King thrived on civil disobedience and used the benefits of this practice in order to gain civil rights for African Americans. On the other hand, Socrates believes in these natural rights, or truth, but believes that it is more important to follow the law that governs you. Where Dr. King believes that it is morally right to strive for justice at all costs, Socrates feels as if he is morally obligated to follow the law. Although there is some truth in the obligation to follow the law that governs you, I do not agree with Socrates' position on civil disobedience. I believe that to make real change, we must disobey the law which constitutes an injustice to everyone's natural rights. Although Socrates took a stand in accepting his punishment, no change in government resulted from his actions. However, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. led the civil rights movement through peaceful protests. Although the process was long and many protesters were tempted to become violent under duress from police or citizens who believed in white supremacy, they managed to bring about real change. I disagree with Socrates that following the law, even when that law is unjust, is morally right. I believe that the protection of natural law, or human rights, is morally justified. Taking steps to change government policy to create law based on what is right for every citizen within this dominion is an obligation to all. A government is made up of ordinary people who can make mistakes. Members of Congress and juries make mistakes and errors of judgment, and citizens do not have an obligation to follow every law that is implemented. Laws play a crucial role in creating a functioning government. However, it is. 2016.