Keith Mack
Civil disobedience is a grave matter, and the provocation for it must be equally grave. It may be right to break the law in order to eliminate inequalities based on race, for example, but only if the consequences have been properly weighed. Some argue that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society, because such a society provides its members with legal instruments for the redress of their grievances. However, others concede that disobedience to the law can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Civil disobedience is justified | When it is necessary to eliminate inequalities based on race |
| Civil disobedience is not justified | When it is possible to accomplish goals by staying within the law |
| Civil disobedience is justified | When the provocation is grave and basic principles are at issue |
| Civil disobedience is not justified | When every law is considered a just law |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Civil disobedience under a despotic regime
Civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. It is a grave enterprise, and the provocation for it has to be equally grave. Civil disobedience is often condemned for risking disorder and for spreading disrespect for the law. However, it can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime.
In states where authoritarian regimes hold power, proponents of civil disobedience campaigns can face dramatic consequences: prison, torture, and execution. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organised forcible resistance, and revolutionary action.
When revolution is called for, such as under colonial occupation, there is no need to justify constrained acts of protest like civil disobedience. More forceful resistance can be justified as we pass into the realm of just war theory. However, the use of violence must not only pursue a just cause but also accord with proportionality and necessity (i.e. be undertaken as a last resort and with a reasonable chance of success).
Civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society because such a society provides its members with legal instruments for the redress of their grievances.
King's Trial Defense: Justifying Civil Disobedience
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Civil disobedience in a democratic society
Civil disobedience is a grave matter and should not be taken lightly. It is possible to argue that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society, as such a society provides its members with legal instruments for the redress of their grievances. However, it is also possible to take a more moderate stance, conceding that disobedience to the law can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime.
In short, civil disobedience may sometimes be justified, but the provocation for it has to be equally grave. Basic principles have to be at issue, and the evils being combated have to be serious and enduring. There should be reasonable grounds to believe that legal methods of fighting them are likely to be insufficient. The most important limitation is that the cause must be a just one. For example, it was right for General de Gaulle to disobey Marshal Pétain, but it was wrong for the commanders of the French Army in Algeria, 20 years later, to disobey General de Gaulle.
Civil disobedience should not be undertaken lightly, as it risks disorder and spreads disrespect for the law. However, it is also important to reject the extreme position that disobedience to the law can never be justified in any circumstances, as this implies that every law that exists is a just law, or that a greater wrong is always done by breaking the law.
In conclusion, while civil disobedience in a democratic society should be a last resort, there may be times when it is necessary and justified. The key considerations are the seriousness of the issue, the likelihood of endurance, the insufficiency of legal methods, and the justice of the cause.
Hitler's Crimes: Breaking International Laws
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Civil disobedience to eliminate inequalities based on race
Civil disobedience is a serious matter and should only be considered when the provocation is equally grave. The evils being combated must be serious and 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.
Civil disobedience has often played a crucial role in bending the proverbial arc of the moral universe toward justice. From the Boston Tea Party to Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt March, and from suffragists’ illegally casting their ballots to whites-only lunch counter sit-ins, civil disobedience has been used to bring about a change in laws or government policies.
In the post-war era, civil disobedience was used to resist racial segregation and discrimination. Strategies such as nonviolent resistance, marches, protests, boycotts, “freedom rides,” and rallies received national attention as newspaper, radio, and television reporters and cameramen documented the struggle to end racial inequality.
Despite major court rulings and landmark legislation meant to right the wrongs of racist laws, inequality persists – partly because the impacts of slavery and segregation were never fully considered in the formulation of the policies meant to address racial disparities.
Therefore, it can be argued that civil disobedience is justified to eliminate inequalities based on race, provided that the consequences have been properly weighed and that the cause is a just one.
Funeral Procession Etiquette: Law or Custom?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Civil disobedience to fight serious evils
Civil disobedience is a grave matter. 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 most important limitation is that the cause must be a just one. For example, it was right for General de Gaulle to disobey Marshal Pétain; it was wrong for the commanders of the French Army in Algeria, 20 years later, to disobey General de Gaulle.
Some people concede that disobedience to the law can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime. However, they argue that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society because such a society provides its members with legal instruments for the redress of their grievances. This is one of the standard arguments that is made against the activities of people like supporters of the Congress of Racial Equality, who set about changing laws they find objectionable by dramatically breaking them.
Such groups are often condemned for risking disorder and for spreading disrespect for the law when, so it is maintained, they could accomplish their goals a great deal more fairly and patriotically by staying within the law, and confining themselves to the courts and to methods of peaceful persuasion. Nevertheless, it is right to break the law in order to eliminate inequalities based on race, if it is absolutely necessary, and if the consequences have been properly weighed.
Trump Beheading Photo: Did Kathy Griffin Break the Law?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Civil disobedience to fight serious evils with insufficient legal methods
Civil disobedience is a grave matter. 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 most important limitation is that the cause must be a just one. It was right for General de Gaulle to disobey Marshal Pétain; it was wrong for the commanders of the French Army in Algeria, 20 years later, to disobey General de Gaulle.
Some people concede that disobedience to the law can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime. They argue, however, that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society, because such a society provides its members with legal instruments for the redress of their grievances.
Such groups are often condemned for risking disorder and for spreading disrespect for the law when, so it is maintained, they could accomplish their goals a great deal more fairly and patriotically by staying within the law, and confining themselves to the courts and to methods of peaceful persuasion.
In conclusion, civil disobedience can be a powerful tool to fight serious evils with insufficient legal methods. However, it should be used sparingly and only when absolutely necessary, as it carries significant risks and consequences.
Asylum Seekers and Crime: Legal Consequences and Ramifications
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Civil disobedience is a grave matter, and it may sometimes be justified, but the provocation for it has to be equally grave. For example, it is right to break the law in order to eliminate inequalities based on race.
Civil disobedience is often condemned for risking disorder and for spreading disrespect for the law. It is argued that civil disobedience can never be justified in a democratic society because such a society provides its members with legal instruments for the redress of their grievances.
Some people concede that disobedience to the law can sometimes be legitimate and necessary under a despotic regime.
The most important limitation is that the cause must be a just one. For example, it was right for General de Gaulle to disobey Marshal Pétain, but it was wrong for the commanders of the French Army in Algeria, 20 years later, to disobey General de Gaulle.
One common mistake is to take the extreme position that disobedience to the law can never be justified in any circumstances. This implies that every law that exists is a just law, or that a greater wrong is always done by breaking the law.
