Eastern philosophies (and at least early Christianity) held these principles. Buddhism, Jainism and Hinduism all follow similar concepts of non-violence. As to an enactment or embodiment of the concept, Gandhi was a strong proponent. However, he was shot dead. Martin Luther King was a proponent -- he was shot. Kennedy was a proponent of peace -- he was shot too. Anwar Sadat, Indira Ghandi -- well, I think you get the point. Jesus -- well, ....
The problem with non-violence was that it often meant death.
Civil disobedience comes with a price up to an including the proponent's death. I find the attached site a good starting point for research into the eastern world.
2007-07-03 16:24:50
·
answer #1
·
answered by guru 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
"Civil disobedience may be justifiable, in some cases, when and if an individual disobeys a law in order to bring an issue to court, as a test case. Such an action involves respect for legality and a protest directed only at a particular law which the individual seeks an opportunity to prove to be unjust. The same is true of a group of individuals when and if the risks involved are their own.
"But there is no justification, in a civilized society, for the kind of mass civil disobedience that involves the violation of the rights of others—regardless of whether the demonstrators' goal is good or evil. The end does not justify the means. No one's rights can be secured by the violation of the rights of others. Mass disobedience is an assault on the concept of rights: it is n mob's defiance of legality as such.
"The forcible occupation of another man's property or the obstruction of a public thoroughfare is so blatant n violation of rights that an attempt to justify it becomes an abrogation of morality. An individual has no right to do a "sit-in" in the home or office of a person he disagrees with—and he does not acquire such a right by joining a gang. Rights are not a matter of numbers—and there can be no such thing, in law or in morality, as actions forbidden to an individual, but permitted to a mob."
2007-07-04 03:21:52
·
answer #2
·
answered by Mr. Wizard 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Chanakya's "Artha Sastra" is considered to be a good guide book for running a Government. But I doubt whether it will hold good in today's Politics! As for Civil Disobedience the best is writings of Mahatma Gandhi.
2007-07-03 16:39:37
·
answer #3
·
answered by Brahmanyan 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
My two choices would be the Tao Te Chang for Eastern political philosophy and Plato's The Republic for Western. Between the two you ought to find some insight and perhaps some balance.
2007-07-03 17:10:23
·
answer #4
·
answered by megalomaniac 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
I know the classics better. They might not be as easy to read, but they offer much in ways of depth and force you to think of concepts that are not usually brought up.
-Plato: The Republic.
-Machiavelli: The Prince.
-Rousseau: Discourse on the Origin and Basis of Inequality among Men.
2007-07-03 16:31:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Karl Marx: The Communist Manifesto.
2007-07-03 22:49:47
·
answer #6
·
answered by Saffren 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
emerson, montaigne, voltaire--lots of 18th and 19th century french philosphers did :-)
2007-07-03 16:49:55
·
answer #7
·
answered by KJC 7
·
0⤊
0⤋