Sunday, May 2, 2010

The Justification of Civil Disobedience (John Rawls)

While I don’t necessarily agree with John Rawls’ theory of justice, I appreciate his theory and see the merits of it. However, I think that his idea of justice may be a little too abstract to achieve. His theory relies on the concept of the veil of ignorance, and while it provides interesting data, to expect people in the real world to think of justice through that framework seems preposterous. But for this reflection, I will accept his notion of justice.

Let’s get straight at the meat of the subject: the justification of civil disobedience. In previous blogs, I have asserted and addressed the risks of civil disobedience and how if we are not careful civil disobedience can and will lead to anarchy. However, Rawls’ theory of civil disobedience is different from the former and more acceptable in my mind. Essentially Rawls was positing a form of civil disobedience much like Gandhi’s concept of Satyagraha. This is much different from the earlier forms of civil disobedience which were much more confrontational and extreme. Rawls believed that civil disobedience should only be used as a last resort when it has become impossible to address your misgivings within the institutions political structures. Furthermore, arguing that the movement should only disobey laws that take away one’s equality of opportunity; but still accept the punishment because you want to create change within the social system instead of trying to create a parallel government. This differs from Thoreau who argued that if you believed a law was unjust you should step out of that government’s rule completely. This is the critical difference between the two forms of civil disobedience.

No comments:

Post a Comment