Is it justifiable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal?

It is not always justifiable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal because some lawful measures are true and just while others might be tyrannical and senseless. Violence is also not the best way to approach a change in a place because that is truly unjustifiable. Rebellion was a great crime and it shouldn’t be used to make the authority take notice. Once rebellion succeeds, there comes a chaos about following actions and questions follow about who would control and change the laws that were rebelled about. For example, during the American Revolution and especially in the beginning of it, the colonists were rebelling against the crown by tarring and feathering British officials, destroying British cargo, and humiliating the British troops stationed in the colonies. Mob action in this case helped the colonists achieve independence because not only were they persistent but also great in numbers, which made lives of the British in the colonies much more difficult. This rebellion succeeded and it became just and controlled. During the Revolution however, America was one big mess in terms of government and policies. Eventually, the colonists started to work together to build a new nation with new laws.

schedule confusion

I was under the impression that we didnt have to post the consider question about justifying the American revolution until tomorrow because the entire week's chedule was shifted. Clarification would be appreciated

Justification of Rebellion in Relation to the American Revolution

Actions of people who oppose lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal are justifiable through ethics and the perspectives they take, yet may not cause successful results. The mob against something may be right, but as long as the lawful measure is prolonged, then it will always be viewed as the accepted standard. This is applicable to the American Revolution because, although the colonists wanted independence and lacked British recognition, rebellion was not fully accepted, such as the case with the loyalists and patriots. Although the rebellion caused harm and casualties to people, the American Revolution was a success and was justified through the majority of feelings of the colonists and should not be considered a crime; the British seemed to treat the Americans as assets to the economy of the crown rather than granting their wishes, leading to their demise.

Mob action justifiable?

The mob action of the American Revolution cannot be viewed as either justifiable or unjustifiable. There were too many factors at play. From the American point of view they fought the French and Indian War and once it was won they couldn't collect the spoils in order to make up for the loss of life and money. The reason the couldn't do so was a British policy, the Proclamation of 1763. From the British point of view, too much money had been already spent on one war to risk fighting another one on new territory. But the Americans felt that since Great Britain hadn't formally founded any of the colonies, why should they have the power to execute such orders. And then one must consider that the Britons just fought a WAR for the colonists so they should have some executive decision. And the colonists would refute that because THEY didn't make an enemy with France. And then the British would say that the colonists needed room to farm anyway. And then the colonists would point out that the British won't LET them farm and the cycle repeats itself.
As one can see, the situation was a paradox with all parties just as much in the moral right as in the moral wrong so there is no way to define whether or not the American mob action was justifiable.

The statement "rebellion is a great crime unless it succeeds" is very correct but not surprisingly so. Rebellion will always be crime under the regime against which it is rebelling and could be viewed as criminal by a third party but if it is successful, it creates new laws. And if it continues then posterity will see it as lawful and NOT criminal because of a previously instituted notion.

No one wishes to believe their society the product of a crime so that notion is not considered whatsoever.

Is rebellion justifyable? Comment on: rebellion is a great crime--unless it succeeds

Is it justifyable for the people to take mob action against lawful measures that they deem harmful or illegal?

Yes, because if a lot of people is against it, then the lawful measures aren't going to work very well anyways. Also, the lawful measures probably are harmful if many people disagree with it, because they are in some way affected negatively by it; that's the reason why they don't like it.

Comment critically on the following proposition in light of the American Revolution: rebellion is a great crime--unless it succeeds

The rebellion of the Americans can be viewed either as treason or a brave attempt at justice, depending on how you define America. If you define colonial America as a part of Britain, and that there are still strong ties between them, then rebellion would be treason. However, if you view America as a different and separate nation, just controlled by another, then it would be a brave attempt at justice. Since Britain was basically exploiting the colonies for revenue, the American people had good reason to rebel; therefore there were weak ties between mother and daughter country, which leads to the conclusion that the rebellion wasn't a crime but rather justifyable.

Is it justified for the people to take mob against the lawful measure that they deem harmful

Attached to themselves to the cause of the independence, with a spirit of the selfless devotion, bore the burden of the battle and the risk of the defeat, it is justified for all these colonists to rebel aganist the harmful lawful measures, and ensuing their own representation and political freedom. By the middle of the eighteenth century, British heavily levy of the taxation and restrict on trade had appearantly to destroy colonist very livelihood. In the interest of the empire , more and more of the planters or merchants were plunged in debt. Facing the impending of the economic crisis, of course America would revolt rather than submit to the far off dictates of the parliament. In a sense, colonist's fight had a certain moral legitimacy as the monarchical conspiracy had strip their liberties as English subject. Governments call actions terrorist to automatically code them as unjustified because they had brought upon the threaten to high authority. But one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter. And just because these so call "rebel", American able to take their own stand and embrace an independence republic. Whether the rebellion is succeed or not, the spirit in pursuit of liberty, happiness is always admirable.

Confused....

I am studying for the essay test tomorrow and I am having some trouble with completely understanding the question....... I do not really get the "politics IN OTHER AREAS OF AMERICAN LIFE." What does the question specifically mean by that? if someone could clarify cause I'm a little bit confused. Thanks.