John Rawlsian Understanding Of Civil Disobedience
1. John Rawls describes civil disobedience as a public and peaceful infringement of law with the intentions of causing change in political policies or laws. Samir should also expand on the features of civil disobedience documented by Rawls; the act must be committed due to selfless motivations that prioritise society rather than the agents’ personal interests. The act must be non-violent, politically motivated and conform to a common understanding of justice with the intention of changing the law. In making the act public, it enables the community to get involved in either criticism or support of the movement therefore regulating it to the common conception of justice. In the case of the demonstrators, it is not an act of civil disobedience
…show more content…
Samir’s criticism of the protestors’ resistance is understandable as he subscribes to a Rawlsian understanding of civil disobedience, the final requirement of civil disobedience is that the protestors expect and accept arrest and therefore punishment. The dissenters are critical of the one law they are protesting not the institution as a whole and so they must retain their loyalty to the system of justice and its procedures. Rawls fundamentally understands civil disobedience as an opportunity to criticise aspects of the law and political policy rather than to establish opposition to it. He believes that dissenters must accept punishment for breaking the law to establish dissent as their acceptance of punishment communicates respect of the system which further reinforces the authenticity and respectability of the movement. Rawls would entirely agree with Samir as the justness of their cause does not supersede the workings of the law as Jo posits. The law is a manifestation of the common conception of justice and should only be disputed when it fails in that aim. In disrespecting the correct procedure of arrest, the protestors place themselves as superior to the system which therefore undermines the altruistic aims of their protest that are central to civil
Samir’s criticism of the protestors’ resistance is understandable as he subscribes to a Rawlsian understanding of civil disobedience, the final requirement of civil disobedience is that the protestors expect and accept arrest and therefore punishment. The dissenters are critical of the one law they are protesting not the institution as a whole and so they must retain their loyalty to the system of justice and its procedures. Rawls fundamentally understands civil disobedience as an opportunity to criticise aspects of the law and political policy rather than to establish opposition to it. He believes that dissenters must accept punishment for breaking the law to establish dissent as their acceptance of punishment communicates respect of the system which further reinforces the authenticity and respectability of the movement. Rawls would entirely agree with Samir as the justness of their cause does not supersede the workings of the law as Jo posits. The law is a manifestation of the common conception of justice and should only be disputed when it fails in that aim. In disrespecting the correct procedure of arrest, the protestors place themselves as superior to the system which therefore undermines the altruistic aims of their protest that are central to civil