For example one definition of civil disobedience that I just read includes lawful nonviolent activities such as boycotts. To engage in civil disobedience is to walk on a slippery slope. Some exclude from the class of civilly disobedient acts those breaches of law that protest the decisions of private agents such as trade unions, banks, private universities, etc.
His family experienced prejudice directly; therefore, King had a personal, vested interest in the various protests. Throughout history, acts of civil disobedience famously have helped to force a reassessment of society's moral parameters. The claim is that jaywalking across an empty street, for example, is hardly reprehensible and its illegality does not make it more reprehensible.
A reason for Rawls to defend this coordination requirement is that, in most cases, it serves a more important concern, namely, the achievement of good consequences.
In fact, Rawls admits that his social contract theory is strictly based on a hypothetical understanding.
Desert theory, by contrast, takes a backward-looking view of the purpose and justification of punishment, focusing on what the offender deserves for her action.
Why because the costs of each special interest special treatment are spread over the whole society. Civil disobedience is generally regarded as more morally defensible than both ordinary offences and other forms of protest such as militant action or coercive violence.
If people are fighting on behalf of a cause, and that group of people make a poor impression on the majority, their cause will be mocked.
On one pluralistic view, a distinction is drawn between the punishment that is deserved according to justice and the punishment that is actually justified.
The cause will have lost its momentum and the ability to draw people over to their side. First, there is the problem of specifying an appropriate notion of violence.
This was particularly important because these workers were often distributed in small production facilities, and had little industrial muscle by themselves.
I am passionate about civil rights, gender equality issues, and consciousness research. A third difference between rule departure and civil disobedience is that, unlike civil disobedience, rule departure does not usually expose those who employ it to the risks of sanction or punishment Feinberg Conscientious Objection: It is equally important that she choose that action for the right reasons.
There are several reasons to take this view.
Schoon have greatly curtailed the availability of the political necessity defence. Sagi, Avi and Shapira, Ron, Yet I and the ACLU would say that I had simply expressed a religious prophecy protected by the 1st and yes also the second amendment to the Constitution.
Most thinkers who have considered civil disobedience defend a limited right to such protest. Mill maintains in On Liberty that if there are any persons who contest a received opinion, we should thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is someone to do for us what we otherwise ought to do ourselves Mill Assuming her challenge is well-founded, there are two further issues.
Thoreau, for his part, spent time in jail for his protest. A pluralistic communicative system, which gives weight to considerations of mercy as well as retribution or desert, would only punish to the extent that the punishment was justified not to the extent that it was deserved since mercy toward the offender might recommend punishing her less than she deserves according to justice.
If they are open in theory, but closed or unfairly obstructed in practice, then the system is not democratic in the way needed to make civil disobedience unnecessary.
One is that disobedients deserve the same punishment as the ordinary offenders who breach the same laws. Richard Dagger argues that To be virtuous…is to perform well a socially necessary or important role. Finally, deterrence theories are criticised for making the parameters for appropriate punishment excessively broad in allowing that whatever punishment is needed to deter people is the justified punishment.
To ward off such challenges, Rawls suggests that, if past actions have shown the majority to be immovable or apathetic, then further attempts may reasonably be thought fruitless and one may be confident one's civil disobedience is a last resort.AprilVol.
3, Pg 38, "Consider Civil Disobedience" More From This Issue April Truth Be Told | CT Magazine. Why Jesus’ Skin Color Matters; Culture Wars | CT Magazine. When the. Justifying civil disobedience and direct action This handout follows the one on ‘Defining direct action and civil disobedience’.
You should read that handout first. CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE Because civil disobedience involves breaking the law, many philosophers have argued that it needs special justification. Civil Disobedience Can Be Justified Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments.
You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page. On many views, an analysis of the justifiability of civil disobedience must consider not only the dissenter's particular action and its likely consequences, but also her motivation for engaging in this act of civil disobedience.
The Factors to Consider When Justifying Civil Disobedience ( words, 8 pages) Essentially, civil disobedience can be described as a non-violent form of political protest when individuals deem a states certain policy or law to be unjust.
Civil Disobedience Can Be Justified Please cast your vote after you've read the arguments. You can also add to the debate by leaving a comment at the end of the page.Download