Resolved: Civil disobedience in a democracy is morally justified.

The value is MORALITY. The resolution fundamentally asks us to weigh the moral reasons in favor of civil disobedience against the moral reasons counseling against it. Therefore morality is the end-goal of the resolution. It is important to note here that given the definition of morally justified, the resolution is comparative. In other words, simply providing one example or set of examples where civil disobedience would not be justified is not sufficient to negate the resolution. Rather, both sides have a burden to prove their position as a general rule. The standard is rights protection. People come together to form democracies in order to ensure that their rights are protected. Democracies are only acting morally, then, when rights are protected. All impacts must link back to citizens’ rights. Contention 1: Civil disobedience is a fundamental right that allows other rights to be protected from unjust laws Associate Professor Susan Tiefenbrun explains. “Within the liberal-democratic tradition, civil disobedience can be considered as a fundamental part of the right to rebel against unfair laws and tyrannical government. It is possible to argue that civil disobedience, as a dimension of the right to rebel constitutes a fundamental human right. Even more, I would like to argue thatThe right to rebel is not simply another human right, but the most important human right we have. In fact, without acknowledging the existence of a right to rebel, the very idea of human rights ceases to make any sense. We need to remember that the dominant discourse of human rights emerged out of the mass rebellions of the American and French Revolutions. Within modern society, it was the exercise of the right to rebel that opened the possibility for us to contemplate today the very notion of human rights. The right to rebel underwrites and creates the foundation for every human right to exist, its full exercise therefore becoming the only effective avenue of political defiance when those rights are under attack by conservative forces.”[4] Tiefenbrun explains that civil disobedience is a prerequisite to all other human rights, because without the ability to protect and defend ones self against unfairness by the government, human rights as a whole cease to exist. Simply put, without civil disobedience, our rights would be useless, and governments could potentially be as tyrannical and unfair as they wish. Because of this, civil disobedience is an appropriate weapon in the fight for justice, since the protection of our rights is paramount in the achievement of justice for all. Contention two: citizens of a democracy serve as an important check within the government. The citizens have a right and duty to show their government its flaws. Paul F. Power elaborates; “Civil disobedience has functional utility for the regime in a second respect, through informing it of its misuse of power according to systemic ideals. The abuses may have resulted from pretensions to sanctity, inefficiency, or elitism. In effect, civil disobedience enlightens the regime, permitting its decision makers to learn about their misconduct from outside sources. Because of constraints,those who engage in civil disobedience contest illicit acts of the regime, not the regime's 1egitimacy.If a positive response ensues, athird, possibleeffect of civil disobedience may be the regime’s correction of abuses through executive, legislative, or judicial action[5] Not only is civil disobedience a fundamental right but it is also an effective way to show a government the flaws within its systems. These flaws can range from an unwanted war to the oppression of an entire race. Because of the monstrous effects these flaws may have the citizens play an important role in preventing their occurrence. Contention three: Civil disobedience has brought about successful and useful changes throughout history. Kayla Starr explains, “Throughout the history of the U.S., civil disobedience has played a significant role in many of the social reforms that we all take for granted today. Some of the most well known of these are: 1) The Boston Tea Party-- citizens of the colony of Massachusetts trespassed on a British ship and threw its cargo (tea from England) overboard, rather than be forced to pay taxes without representation to Britain. This was one of the many acts of civil disobedience leading to the War for Independence, establishing the United States of America as a sovereign state. 2) Anti-war movementshave been a part of U.S. history since Thoreau went to jail for refusing to participate in the U.S. war against Mexico,in 1849. More recent examples were thenationwide protests against the war in Viet Nam, U.S. involvement in Nicaragua and Central America, and the Gulf War.Actions have included refusal to pay for war, refusal to enlist in the military, occupation of draft centers, sit-ins, blockades, peace camps, and refusal to allow military recruiters on high school and college campuses. 3) The Women's Suffrage Movement lasted from 1848 until 1920, when thousands of courageous women marched in the streets, endured hunger strikes, and submitted to arrest and jail in order to gain the right to vote. 4) [The] Abolition of slavery -- including Harriet Tubman's underground railway, giving sanctuary, and other actions which helped to end slavery. 5) The introduction of labor laws and unions.Sit-down strikes organized by the IWW, and CIO free speech confrontations led to the eradication of child labor and improved working conditions, established the 40-hour work week and improved job security and benefits. 6) The Civil Rights Movement, led by Martin Luther King, Jr. and others, included sit-ins and illegal marches which weakened segregation in the south. 7) The Anti-Nuclear Movement, stimulated by people like Karen Silkwood and the Three Mile Island nuclear power accident, organized citizens throughout the country into direct action affinity groups, with consensus decision making and Gandhian nonviolence as its core. Massive acts of civil disobedience took place at nuclear power facilities across the country, followed by worldwide protests against first-strike nuclear weapons, occupying military bases, maintaining peace camps, interfering with manufacture and transport of nuclear bombs and devices, marching, sitting in, blockading and otherwise disrupting business as usual at nuclear sites. 8) [and] Environmental and forest demonstrations, with acts of civil disobedience such as sit ins, blockades, tree sits and forest occupations, have emerged in the last decade, prompted by the continuing mass clear cuts and destruction of the forest ecosystem and widespread environmental consequences. In all of these struggles, citizens had reached the conclusion that the legal means for addressing their concerns had not worked. They had tried petitioning, lobbying, writing letters, going to court, voting for candidates that represented their interests, legal protest, and still their views were ignored.”[6] Thus, they resorted to civil disobedience, which brought about real results in the fight for justice. Without civil disobedience, none of these demonstrations and changes could have possibly occurred.SOURCES [3] Moral Decision Making -- An Analysis. MacDonald, Chris. St. Mary’s University, Department of Philosophy.http://www.ethicsweb.ca... [4] Susan Tiefenbrun, Associate Professor Of Law At Thomas Jefferson School Of Law In San Diego, California, 2003 “Article: Civil Disobedience And The U.S. Constitution.” Southwestern University Law Review. 32 Sw. U. L. Rev. 677 [5] Civil Disobedience as Functional Opposition Paul F. Power The Journal of Politics, Vol. 34, No. 1. (Feb., 1972), pp. 37-55 [6] Kayla Starr, Civil Disobedience Activist, Summer 1998 “The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy.” The Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. Online.