![]() Although it can be argued that no act is selfless – protestors will also benefit from achieving more justice – most theorists agree that lawbreaking can only be justified if the purpose is not solely self-centered. Although gratuitous acts of violence can undermine the cause, some will argue that certain forms of violence may be justified, especially if there is no choice.Īcts of civil disobedience should not purely serve a person’s self-interest, otherwise the legitimacy may be questioned. Some theorists, including Rawls, argue that acts of civil disobedience can only be non-violent. However, it can be argued that anonymity can be essential to protect the activists from disproportionate retribution. This in turn will make it more likely that the general public supports their actions. ![]() Their acceptance of the personal consequences demonstrates their commitment to the social cause. ![]() With the term “public”, Rawls meant that protestors should identify themselves and take responsibility for their actions. The American philosopher John Rawls defined civil disobedience as a “public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government”. The aim usually consists of bringing changes to laws or government policies. Paint thrown on a Van Gogh? Mashed potato flung at Monet? You might be wondering how these extreme actions help prevent global warming, but they follow a long tradition of protest that has been instrumental to civil rights movements throughout history.Ĭivil disobedience is an intentional breach of law for a social purpose.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |