Rawls and King on Civil Disobedience

773 Words2 Pages

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”. Rawls is saying civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws; which are usually motivated by a need to change the policies and laws held by the government and state. Civil disobedient actions require publicity, nonviolence and conscientious breach made to the law they are trying to take down. Their aim is to bring about a change in laws or government policies. Civil disobedience is often intended to point out injustices in the law, and undermine the law’s effectiveness. Civil disobedience differs from revolution in that you are being nonviolent, conscientious, and willing to accept legal consequences of their action. Civil disobedience is breaking of a law or laws, to bring attention to the public of its injustice and their motive is to force a change, to make the law just. Civil disobedience is done selflessly, not due to self-interest, but with the community’s best interest at heart. Civil disobedience is only an act against unjust laws, or laws that are thought to be unjust, and thus should be made just. 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... ... middle of paper ... ...y, and also fidelity to the law. Acts of civil disobediences are aimed to defend principles of justice. In King’s case he aims to persuade the local government and the businesses to comply with desegregation laws. It was important for him to communicate fidelity to the law. You should lovingly break a law, because your reason behind protesting to to achieve what you see as a higher good. You are not directly hurting the people. King’s argument ultimately is you can break the law to make the law more just. You are attempting to break the law to show that the law is unjust, and it is an act of saying that the law can be made better than it is now. He’s gathered his facts and understanding of the law, it is 100% clear there’s a problem. For civil disobedience to be justified a real injustice must exist, or else it wouldn’t addresses a sense of justice of the majority.

Open Document