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.
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.
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.
“No radical change on the plane of history is possible without crime,” This quote from Hermann Keyserling is just one of many statements that help describe the meaning and true raw power of Civil Disobedience. Civil disobedience as defined by Merriam Webster is the “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government”. The most promising and understandable of the definitions of Civil Disobedience would be that given to us by Gandhi from India “Compassion in the form of respectful disagreement”. Even the Veterans Fast for Life from here in the United States must agree when saying, “when leaders act contrary to conscience, we must act contrary to leaders.” To understand why civil disobedience is so important in our lives you must first look into your heart and realize that the integrity of mankind has no need of rules.
Civil Disobedience, as stated in the prompt, is the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Many people believe this has a negative impact on the free society because they believe civil disobedience can be dangerous or harmful. Civil disobedience does not negatively affect the free society in a dangerous manner because it is peaceful and once it becomes harmful to the free society then it is not civil disobedience. Thoreau believed civil disobedience is an effective way of changing laws that are unjust or changing things that as a society and to the people does not seem correct. This peaceful act of resistance positively impacts a free society. Some examples are Muhammad Ali peacefully denying the draft and getting arrested. These men believed that what they saw was wrong and they did something about it but they did it peacefully.
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
In the Theory of Justice by John Rawls, he defines civil disobedience,” I shall begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”.
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.
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
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
“Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” Those words by Henry David Thoreau encapsulate that civil disobedience positively impacts a free society because it promotes protection of natural rights. This is proven with the following syllogism. First, governmental protection of natural rights is essential for a free society. Second, civil disobedience promotes governmental protection of natural rights. Finally, therefore, civil disobedience positively impacts a free society.
To argue the positive, civil disobedience is always necessary in situations where the issue is in the law or society itself. Particularly,
“ There are as many views as there are different aspects of civil disobedience...the difference of views appears to be infinite. But there is general consensus that at least one common factor can be found, and that is, a willingness to respect and accept the relevant legal system. That is the marked difference between civil disobedience and open revolt or armed revolution,” ("Democracy Can 't Exist without Respect for the Rule of Law"). There are many differences between revolution and civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is nonviolent and respectful to the law. Armed revolution is a fighting against the government with weapons and an intent to destroy the government. Many may say that civil disobedience is a slippery slope and it will lead to revolution. Civil disobedience is very respectful and the only reason it is happening is because there are unjust laws. The people who participate in civil disobedience or peaceful protests are displaying respect for their government by helping it become better, rather than trying to overthrow