Rawls View Of Civil Disobedience

Rawls argues that violence, when practicing civil disobedience, cannot be justified; however, violence is a part of civil disobedience; its qualities as both a practice and is justification hold true the goal of civil disobedience- a call for change in the laws or practices. Civil disobedience is an act in violation of a law, which is undertaken for moral reasons. Rawls’ view of civil disobedience is that it cannot be violent because of its nature. This practice does in fact have the abilities to become violent, and those who commit it vary and do so for various reasons. Ultimately, the goal of civil disobedience is to render change unto laws or practices that are deemed unjust, morally, to a group of people who live within the community; the
It is “a public, nonviolent, and consenctious act contrary to law usually done with the intent to bring about a change in the policies or laws of the government” (Rawls). Rawls stresses that for civil disobedience to occur, it is naturally nonviolent. It is done so to promote change, because of the social contract that all members of the society have agreed to. When this act occurs, those involved do so while accepting their punishment without resistance or any form of violence. This insures that the participants appeal to the respect of the law, and make it known that they respect the law; but disagree with the majorities’ current law(s) or practices. To violate this practice is to engage in forceful conduct that neither appreciates the law or adheres to the social
That is, in my view, he makes it so as to render violence an action that is wrong in it self. These people are made out to be “terrorist.” That those who use violence do so merely to get what they wish with complete disregard for the agreed safety and balance that the laws provide. In this, I feel Rawls thinks of violent people as aggressors who use bully tactics to get what they want, violating the social contract of majority rules. Rawls makes the assumption that violence is itself separate from man, or at the very least a separate action in it self. That violence cannot be connected in any way with civil disobedience, and as such makes the practice one of which is used for the sake of doing physical harm that is out of harmony with the civil