Rawls notion of civil disobedience tends to define civil disobedience as going against law or set down norms in the society. There are however situations in which civil disobedience may be morally justified. Rawls advances a philosophy about civil disobedience that has widely been accepted by most scholars of recent times. Rawls defends scholarly works defends civil disobedience as a non-violent attempt by the public to defy the law with the aim of bringing a change to the government or to a structure of the set down laws. According to this philosophy, the people who decide to engage in breaching the law are ready to face the consequences and this shows their solidarity and commitment to alter the set rules. Civil disobedience however when analyzed from a different point of view is seen to lie between legal disobedience and violent and militant revolution against governing bodies and structures.
This introduces an interesting twist to this philosophy. Why would this civil disobedience be publicized to the level of giving prior warning to government structures? This would simply mean that the authoritative figures will have enough time to crash the resistance. This also bring to question the fact that people who participate in civil disobedience are ready to face the consequences of their action. This argument by some scholars in essence renders Rawls notion on civil disobedience entirely narrow. Rawls principle also suggests that civil disobedience is morally justifiable. One would still argue that Rawls’ notion tend to apply to a society that is nearly just and does not go to the extent of comparing how this would take effect in a society that is considered to be less just. This paper analyzes a broader view of Rawls principle on social justice.
Certain aspects of civil disobedience depict it as a way of not only impacting on the government but also as a justifiable way of breaching law and the rule of law. Civil disobedience is generally considered morally accepted and justifiable compared to other forms of offences that are considered a breach of the law. People who practice civil disobedience are described as having a strong moral conviction and seriousness with which they are committed in changing the system. For many deviant individuals who choose to breach the rule of law are not only driven by their own moral interests but also the interests of the larger society. Through their actions of breach of law, they shift the attention of the general society to rules and structures that are inappropriate or considered oppressive.
In an almost just society, in Rawls opinion, people who participate in civil disobedience do so with the general backing of the majority to show that the people in authority have failed to respect justice and upholding of interests of the society. Rawls’ narrow description of civil disobedience has been analyzed by many scholars with many describing it as being entirely narrow since other issues that are not necessarily law or governance such as transparency, integrity and security could also motivate some individuals to take the action of civil disobedience. However, Rawls conforms to the notion that people present justifiable reasons towards their actions of breach of law that are later deliberated and accepted by the general population. In this effect, they are therefore considered to be morally right despite them having gone against the rule of law.
Individuals who participate in civil disobedience often have two aims they wish to achieve. As much as they would want the people to rise against the system of governance or set of rules, they also bring into sharp focus other rules that may warrant peoples’ concern and thereby lead to their modification. It is however, debatable what kind of policies the people who participate in civil disobedience seek to address. This is because individuals who defy the rule of law could prompt the people to rise against the rules they embrace with the aim of bringing to light other rules they may not embrace. This is backed by the fact that, when people rise against the form of leadership, the general population tends to later critically analyze the whole structure of leadership and the rule of law.
Rawls emphasizes the theme of publicity in his critical analysis of civil disobedience. He advances the notion that civil disobedience should not be secretive but should have an aspect of publicity to the extent of informing the instruments of leadership about the intended action. Despite the thinking that prior warning would be an appropriate for strategizing but this is not entirely true. Prior warning can in some other circumstances deter civil disobedience. This is because prior warning provides the legal and governing authorities ample opportunity to counter both communication, publicity and the civil disobedience. This means that, unlike Rawls advocacy for prior warning, unannounced form of civil disobedience would be more effective since it has with it some element of surprise.
Another controversial issue with regards to civil disobedience is the use of non-violence mechanisms to oppose the rule of law. Rawls is opposed to any form of violence while conducting the breach of law. However, this like prior warning has a negative impact on the action against governing structures. Rawls’ advocacy for non-violence can be challenged further since it is not clear whether in this context violence means inflicting harm to other people or destruction of property. This has been challenged by many scholars in recent time.
References
Adler, J. E. (2007). Philosophical Inquiry: Classic and Contemporary Readings. Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company.
