Civil Disobedience: When Is Law-Breaking Justified?

Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or orders of a government or occupying power. It is often non-violent and is usually employed when legal avenues for addressing grievances are blocked or non-existent. The goal of civil disobedience is to force concessions from the government or occupying power.

The concept of civil disobedience is not new, with roots in Western thought that can be traced back to the likes of Cicero, Thomas Aquinas, and John Locke. The term was popularised in the US by Henry David Thoreau in his essay 'Resistance to Civil Government', later renamed 'Civil Disobedience'.

Civil disobedience has been used by prominent activists throughout history, including Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Susan B. Anthony. It has also been a tactic employed by various social movements, including the American civil rights movement, the women's movement, and the anti-globalisation movement.

While civil disobedience is often non-violent, there is debate as to whether it must necessarily be so. Some argue that violent civil disobedience can be more effective and, therefore, more justified. However, others maintain that non-violence is a crucial aspect of civil disobedience, as it helps to preserve society's tolerance of such actions.

Regardless of the form it takes, civil disobedience is a powerful tool that has played a crucial role in bending the arc of the moral universe towards justice.

Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent, conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies

Civil disobedience is a controversial topic that has been debated by philosophers, politicians, and activists for centuries. It is defined as a public, non-violent, and conscientious breach of law undertaken to bring about a change in laws or government policies. While civil disobedience has played a crucial role in advancing social justice, the question of whether individuals have a right or duty to break the law remains a subject of ethical debate.

One perspective argues that civil disobedience can be justified when individuals or minorities face unjust laws or policies that violate their fundamental rights or moral principles. This view holds that civil disobedience is a legitimate form of political expression and a way to hold governments accountable. Proponents of civil disobedience believe that it can be an effective tool for social change, especially when legal avenues for redress are inadequate or ineffective.

However, there are also strong arguments against civil disobedience. Some critics argue that civil disobedience undermines the rule of law and can lead to social disorder. They contend that in a democracy, there are legal mechanisms for addressing grievances, and civil disobedience is unnecessary and counterproductive. Others worry that civil disobedience could escalate into violence or anarchy if left unchecked.

The justification for civil disobedience depends on various factors, including the nature of the law or policy being challenged, the availability of legal alternatives, the urgency of the issue, and the potential consequences of breaking the law. Proponents of civil disobedience emphasize the importance of non-violence, public communication, and acceptance of legal consequences. They argue that civil disobedience should be a last resort when all other avenues have failed.

Civil disobedience has a long history, with early examples dating back to ancient times, such as Antigone's defiance of Creon's edict in Sophocles' play "Antigone." The modern concept of civil disobedience was popularized by figures like Henry David Thoreau, who refused to pay taxes as a protest against slavery and the Mexican-American War, and Mahatma Gandhi, who developed the philosophy of Satyagraha, advocating for non-violent resistance to injustice.

Civil disobedience has been employed in various social and political movements, including the American civil rights movement, anti-war protests, the women's movement, and environmental campaigns. While civil disobedience is rarely justifiable in court, it has played a significant role in advancing social and political change by challenging unjust laws and policies.

Civil disobedience is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole

Civil disobedience is not a rejection of the system as a whole. Those who engage in civil disobedience operate at the boundary of fidelity to law, have a general respect for their regime, and are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions. They are not attempting to overthrow the government but are instead seeking to change specific laws or policies.

The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or non-existent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes and are known by the actor and the public to be punishable that such acts serve as a protest. By submitting to punishment, the civil disobedient hopes to set a moral example that will provoke the majority or the government into effecting meaningful political, social, or economic change.

Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse, in which two public agencies, especially two equally sovereign branches of government, conflict.

Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government or occupying power

Civil disobedience is a refusal to obey certain laws, demands, orders, or commands of a government or occupying power. It is often non-violent and public, and is undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. Civil disobedience is not a new phenomenon; it has been used throughout history to fight for causes such as freedom, equality, and national independence.

The concept of civil disobedience is rooted in the belief that there is a higher moral law or principle that supersedes the laws of the government or occupying power. Those who engage in civil disobedience may break the law, but they do so in a deliberate, principled, and conscientious manner. They often accept the legal consequences of their actions, using their punishment to highlight the injustice of the law or policy they are protesting.

Civil disobedience can take many forms, from peaceful protests and non-violent resistance to forming blockades or occupying facilities illegally. It is a powerful tool for social change and has been used by prominent activists throughout history, including Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Susan B. Anthony.

While civil disobedience is a powerful tool, it is not without its critics. Some argue that it undermines respect for the law and can lead to disorder. Others see it as a challenge to the existing political structure, while some conservative schools of thought view it as a step towards anarchy. Despite these criticisms, civil disobedience remains a significant tactic for those seeking to bring about change when legal avenues for redress are blocked or non-existent.

Civil disobedience is a moral right against the law

Civil disobedience is a grave enterprise. It may sometimes be justified, but the provocation for it has to be equally grave. Basic principles have to be at issue. The evils being combated have to be serious evils that are likely to endure unless they are fought. There should be reasonable grounds to believe that legal methods of fighting them are likely to be insufficient by themselves.

The goals of those who disobey the law have to lie at the very heart of what we regard as morality before we can say that they have a moral right to do what they are doing. The exercise of this right is subject to standards of just and fair behaviour. Civil disobedience is an effort to change the law by making it impossible to enforce the law, or by making the price of such enforcement extremely high. It is because acts associated with civil disobedience are considered crimes that such acts serve as a protest.

Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse. It is a symbolic or ritualistic violation of the law rather than a rejection of the system as a whole. The civil disobedient, finding legitimate avenues of change blocked or non-existent, feels obligated by a higher, extralegal principle to break some specific law.

Civil disobedience is not always non-violent. Violent civil disobedience is more of an active attempt to overthrow a government or to change cultural traditions, social customs, or religious beliefs. Civil disobedience is usually recognised as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse, in which two public agencies, especially two equally sovereign branches of government, conflict.

Civil disobedience is a political act

Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse, in which two public agencies, especially two equally sovereign branches of government, conflict. It is a refusal of a citizen to obey certain laws, demands, orders or commands of a government (or any other authority).

Civil disobedience is not simply like other acts in which men stand up courageously for their principles. It involves violation of the law. And the law can make no provision for its violation except to hold the offender liable to punishment. No society, whether free or tyrannical, can give its citizens the right to break its laws: To ask it to do so is to ask it to proclaim, as a matter of law, that its laws are not laws.

Civil disobedience is an effort to change the law by making it impossible to enforce the law, or by making the price of such enforcement extremely high. It is a case, as it were, of holding the legal system to ransom. It can arouse extreme passions on one side or the other, excite and provoke the unbalanced, and make disrespect for the law a commonplace and popular attitude.

Civil disobedience is usually recognised as being non-violent. However, there have been debates as to whether it must necessarily be so. Violent civil disobedience is more of an active attempt to overthrow a government (or to change cultural traditions, social customs or religious beliefs).

Frequently asked questions