Several people have argued that civil disobedience is never morally justified because it violates the law. Here, I explain why these people believe civil disobedience is never morally justified, give reasons why civil disobedience is considered morally justified, and explain Rawls conditions under which civil disobedience is morally justified. Civil disobedience, as defined by John Rawls, is “a public, nonviolent, and conscientious act contrary to law usually done with the intent to bring about a change in the policies or laws of the government (SAS, pg. 250).” Rawls, however, has a very narrow definition of civil disobedience and it is pretty common for it to be defined with some of its restrictions dropped (SAS, pg. 251). Some people, such
This is John Rawls approach and according to his theory all four of the following conditions must be met in order for an act of civil disobedience to be considered justified and not morally wrong. First, the act must be a last resort, meaning all reasonable legal means were tried in good faith and rejected before resorting to civil disobedience and the standard means of redress have been tried. Often times the minority are ignored by political parties and their attempts to repeal the law are often met with more repression. Second is substance, the act must oppose an injustice that is substantial and clear and to those of which, if rectified, will establish a basis for doing away with the remaining injustices (SAS, pg. 252). Third, fairness, the protester must be willing to give everyone the same chance to commit a similar act under similar circumstances, everyone must have that equal right. This also means you must be willing to accept the consequences of their doing so. This condition of civil disobedience is a tricky one in that if there are so many people or groups with a sound case for resorting to civil disobedience, there is a chance that disorder would follow. You must ask yourselves the question of who among these people and/or groups may exercise their right, which falls under the problem of fairness. Finally, the fourth condition is that, the act must be likely to succeed, it is not worth committing the act if it is likely to fail because it will not further the needs of the group committing the act. What if your protest invokes a harsh backlash from the majority, which is likely if the majority does not have a sense of justice, the action is poorly timed, or not well designed to appeal to their sense of justice effectively. The exercise of civil disobedience should be rational and reasonably designed to advance the protesters
Civil disobedience spawns a major and widely debated issue by many who established by well-known intelligent scholars and many examples of civil disobedience become displayed. The acts of civil disobedience can be noted in major works such as Sophocles?s Antigone, King?s ?Letter from Birmingham Jail?, or even from Plato?s ?from Crito?. A specific claim exemplified throughout these works make that civil disobedience races in gaining popularity and should remain allowed, and continued to be seen as a solution to reform poorly established laws. A claim represented is, civil disobedience is right. Rhetorically, appeals such as credibility, logic and emotion can provide support for these claims.
In the great era of foundational philosophers, two stand out, Plato and Thoreau. Each had their own opinion on various topics, especially on civil disobedience. Plato’s life span was approximately 428-348 BC. Plato wrote numerous works throughout his lifetime, however we will be focusing on one, the Crito. Thoreau’s life span was 1817-1862. To help us determine what civil disobedience means to both of these philosophers we will first look at a general definition. According to Merriam-Webster civil disobedience is defined as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.” This definition will act as a springboard to compare and contrast both of their thoughts on the topic. We will determine, according to Plato and Thoreau, when we are called to engage in civil disobedience and when the moral parameters of civil disobedience are pushed too far.
For acts of civil disobedience to be justified, those acts need to be acts of protest. Thoreau desired a change ...
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
There are many features of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience according to Rawls must be political in nature; agents engaged in civil disobedience must be appealing to a “common conception of justice”. It is aimed at changing the law, thus, it is a method requiring political engagement. The goal of this is to bring the law into conformity with the theory of justice. In order to make it a particularly clear case of rejecting the ou...
On Socrates’ point of view either the disobedience to the law or to the civil disobedience can be justified. To justify it correctly you have to be able to argue and find reasons for every given rule. Not just believe in what others say.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
In the chapter “Civil Disobedience” by Professor David S. Meyer, he talks about many different movements and social groups that had made an impact within society. He goes over the different areas that civil disobedience covers, and gives detailed examples about how civil disobedience leads to change of some sort. Meyer explains that in order to fully understand what civil disobedience is, it has to be looked at on a different level. Many people have their own interpretation of what they think civil disobedience is. It is seen as challenging public authority, and most of the time leading to an uproar of different groups participating in civil disobedience. When social movements take action into commencing civil disobedience, they do it
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
It is something that is extremely variable as its results are not always predictable, and it is possible that civil disobedience will worsen the cause. During the inauguration of Donald Trump, there were a series of riots to protest his election. While their cause was against the negative qualities of Trump, such as his racist, sexist remarks, the protests did not do much. They only caused thousands of dollars in property damage as during these riots it was common to deface public property, and caused aspersions from immutable citizens who did not agree with their actions. Their actions also tended to undermine the fact that civil disobedience is supposed to be peaceful, and there was violence against property and other people. Also, the leaders of the causes being run have to be great; however, this is not always the case. Not everyone can be a Martin Luther King, Jr. and Gandhi. For example, John Brown was a man outraged by slavery and with his megalomania contrived a way to change it in a horrifying, bizzare way. With his heart in the right place to eradicate it, he went out and slaughtered slavery supporters in an extremely heinous way; he used machetes. This was an extremely violent action and deemed too harsh. He led his followers into the situation with him as well, and his followers were castigated. This shows the negatives of following morals above law as they are not always the right actions to
The prompt defines civil disobedience as “the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences.” One can see from this definition that civil disobedience only opposes “unjust” laws. What then, is an unjust law? In his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, Martin Luther King Jr. recognized that an unjust law is one that infringes upon natural rights: “A just law is a man made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.” Since unjust laws infringe upon natural rights, and since civil disobedience opposes unjust laws, civil disobedience promotes governmental protection of natural
Civil Disobedience is always happening, from one side of the planet to the other. Many heated debates go on to to try and figure out when it is appropriate or when it has gone to far. When it is appropriate to be civilly disobedient is when the government goest against a persons morals. A perfect example for this is the Revolution of '75. When the American Revolution takes place. Thoreau states that "A whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is a tot too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize."(Page 3) Even though this turned violent. It was still appropriate. The American's did not want British rule of someone who was so far away.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law” (King, Martin L., Jr.). When the African Americans were protesting oppression it was an act of civil disobedience. When the women’s suffrage movement happened thousands of women marched in the streets, they endured hunger strikes, and submitted to arrest to gain the right to vote (Starr).In other words, America has a long history of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is nonviolent. It helps alleviate frivolous and harmful laws. Civil disobedience is morally justified in a democracy because
Over 200 years ago, the founding fathers of America revolted against Britain due to unfair treatment. It was during this time, patriots took actions that included: pooring hot tar and feathers onto tax collectors, dumping massive amounts of British imported tea into Boston Harbor, and assaulting British soldiers in mobs like in the Boston Massacre. At this point many identify these actions as justified, but that does nothing to take away from the violent nature of these actions. Generations later Americans would continue to take action when wronged, yet they would do so without the extreme measures of our four fathers, but be looked upon instead as the offenders. So Civil Disobedience is questioned constitutionally, when in fact it positively
The institutionalised violence and murder of young Americans with dreams of a better future enraged Americans nationwide calling forth and demanding a change. The call for change began with an African American taking a seat in a restaurant or another public building as a demonstration of peaceful civil disobedience. Civil disobedience as a whole has been a positive addition to our free society because people can see that there is a problem worth their attention. Doing is more effective and attention grabbing than just saying what one believes in and actions speak louder than words for a reason. According to Newton's laws of motion, objections at rest will stay at rest until acted upon by an outside force. That outside force can be one person who does one thing that may seem insignificant but as that motion gains momentum, when the object hits its target, the impact will be far too large to ignore. Though civil disobedience may be illegal, as time progresses our laws need to progress with