Disobedience or Foolishness?

Disobedience, to a certain extent, is needed in a community. Without it, we would continue to move in a straight line, not changing or improving the state of our society.

Say, for example, dairy milk was mandatory to put into your coffee: that would be problematic because some people prefer another type of milk, or others could be lactose intolerant. There needs to be someone who can stop this and create a more balanced union of people. Unfortunately, that would be going against the law, meaning there would be a large punishment that follows. Is it really worth it?

To keep this world fair for everyone, yes, it is worth it.

This is the theme brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, that when something is unjust, we have to change that to make it more just. Thoreau would fight for the abolition of slavery, only for his acts of protest (not paying the poll tax to vote) to be treated as a slight nuisance by the government, thus he was put into jail for a night.

illustration by Tom Bachtell

This could also go twofold, though. If you’re fighting for something that’s morally wrong while a law that benefits people that would mean that disobedience is not needed.

For example, if everyone is allowed whichever type of creamer they would like in their coffee and there is someone that would like to have everyone use dairy milk, it does not help anyone other than the select group of those that use dairy milk in their coffee. In this case, disobedience is not needed because the preexisting condition of the law did not hurt anyone.

In conclusion, disobedience against the law is very fragile. Obviously, no one wants to be punished by the law, but we all want to live in a world where equal opportunities are given to everyone.

 

Links:  The Return of Civil Disobedience