Resolved: Civil Disobedience is morally justified in a democratic society.

I negate civil disobedience is morally justified in a democratic society. The following definitions are provided: "Utilitarianism: A doctrine that the useful is the good and that the determining consideration of right conduct should be the usefulness of its consequences; a theory that the aim of action should be the largest possible balance of pleasure over pain or the greatest happiness of the greatest number The value is justice, because civil disobedience can often lead to violence. The action of violence leads to major social uprisings, issues, and disruptions in public life in general. Violence also leads to, on occasion, the loss of lives, which is inexcusable to any extent. Civil disobedience often leads to violence, which leads to the loss of people. Because the loss of lives is not morally appropriate, the value is justice. The value criterion is protecting the lives of citizens, because the loss of lives, as stated earlier, is absolutely inexcusable to any extent. Civil disobedience very often leads to violence, which also stated earlier, leads to casualties. On occasion, the casualties can reach heights that cannot be accepted in any way. The loss of lives is to no extent morally justified, so civil disobedience cannot and is not morally justified in a democratic society. Contention 1: Civil disobedience is not morally justified because it leads to jeopardizing the lives of people. Some protesters of civil disobedience resort to violence to spread their own messages, jeopardizing the lives of others in the process. Malcolm X is an example. Throughout his role in the civil rights movement, he resorted to violence in order to express his ideas in a widespread manner. In the article, "MLK vs. Malcolm X" by Brielle Edwards, it is stated, "His most famous line was "By any Means Necessary". He believed in fighting back physically. Whatever had to be done to get freedom he was all for it whether it be violence or non violence. " She also states: "Malcolm X had a different perspective regarding the march. He felt that integration would destroy the black and the white man. He felt that American blacks should be more concerned with helping each other. He felt blacks should start by giving the same race self-respect first. " The impact is that some protesters of civil disobedience can resort to violence in order to spread their message. The inappropriate act of violence can lead to the loss of lives, which is morally wrong. Contention 2: Civil Disobedience is not morally justified because it leads to violence w=very often. As stated in "Fredrik Bendz" philosophy: Civil Disobedience" by Fredrik Bendz, it states: "Even a small group of citizens can, with only a little effort, cause great destruction on the infrastructure of a country. The problem with this is that a small terror group without any mandate from the rest of the population may consider themselves to be the righteous ones. Some Anarchists even think that they are acting in the best interest of society, even though the people sympathize neither with their ends nor their means. These people seem to think that they are somehow superior, and that the others don't know their own best. " The impact is similar to the previous argument; it jeopardizes the lives of people, leading to deaths in occasion. However, if civil disobedience can be prevented, the loss of lives can be prevented, all the while keeping the general public"s autonomy in balance.