Category: Civil Disobedience

Introduction to Civil Disobedience: Origins and Key Figures

Civil disobedience is having a peaceful protest or not using violence when trying to make a change. The first time this was enforced was by Gandhi. Gandhi led the salt march, a non violent protest to stop British rule. Martin Luther King also brought up the idea of civil disobedience in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. King talks about social injustices while maintaining civil disobedience. He says that for protesting they will accept punishments because their acts are illegal (King). From this the reader can see the racial and social injustice. The reader can see how from African Americans protesting publicly and allowing themselves to get arrested they are trying to raise awareness to the unfair laws. In the Crito, Socrates does not agree with his friend that he should escape from jail and he should accept the punishment sentenced to him by the Athenian court. Here, we can see a clear similarity in both readings. Both Martin Luther King and Socrates agree that they should accept their punishments rather than running away from them. If one runs away from their punishments, they will always catch up to them regardless of the circumstances.

Martin Luther King’s Advocacy of Civil Disobedience: The Birmingham Campaign

Martin Luther King in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail brings up the idea of civil disobedience. Martin Luther King wanted to reform laws that were unjust in Birmingham. King states that he was in Birmingham because he needed to respond to social injustices and he felt obligated to help or take a stand. King talks about the city’s segregation, police brutality toward African Americans, and their mistreatment in courts, along with many other things. This shows the reader how Martin Luther King finds the protests just and necessary due to the conditions and treatment towards the African American community Birmingham. “A just law is a man made code that square with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law… Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust. All segregation statues are unjust because segregation distorts the soul and damages the personality” (King). This shows Martin Luther Kings differentiation of what makes a law just and unjust. This means that a law is determined just or unjust it depends on how it makes or portrays a person in society. He also makes the point that African Americans in Birmingham have tried to negotiate with community leaders but it never worked. This shows what led to to protest and that African Americans tried to negotiate with the whites in the community but they never came to an agreement or they never stuck to their side of the deal. “Nonviolent direct action seeks to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation” (King). This demonstrates that King felt it necessary to protest and make it uncomfortable for the whites to have a change. King also says, “We know through painful experience that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed” (King). This shows how in order for them to truly achieve freedom or change they need to protest and make it difficult for the opposing side.

Analyzing King’s Justification for Breaking Unjust Laws

Although the eight white clergy men say that Matin Luther King and other protestors are breaking laws, he states that he feels it to be a moral obligation to not follow unjust laws and that they laws they are breaking are unjust. Here he admits to breaking laws during his protests but at the same time he questions the validity of the broken laws. All of these points Martin Luther King has made thus far is related to civil disobedience. He states reasons for his protests and how they are acts of nonviolence against unjust laws in the city of Birmingham. He also says that he and is other protestors are going to accept whatever punishments they are sentenced for breaking the law. This shows how they are still showing some respect towards laws that are not considered unjust. “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty… an individual who breaks a law that consciences tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law” (King). This shows how Martin Luther King feels on civil disobedience and protests. He thinks that if one wants change they have to be willing to do all they can while still having respect for just laws in the criminal justice system. I brings light to the idea that the idea of civil disobedience is to raise concern to the social injustice. “We can never forget that everything Hitler did in Germany was “legal” and everything the Hungarian freedom fighters did in Hungary was ‘illegal’” (King). This shows how although Hilters acts were legal but unjust meanwhile the Hungarians acts were illegal but for good reasoning. This is important because it connects to the case in Birmingham because although the protestors are breaking laws, which therefore is illegal, it is for good reasoning while the whites in Birmingham are doing the wrong but it is considered legal. This shows the racial and social injustice and the split between whites and African Americans. King says that their movement is a third way of a nonviolent protest. This shows the extent of to which the protestors have tried make change in Birmingham. “We will reach the goal of freedom in Birmingham and all over the nation, because the goal of America is freedom” (King). This shows how Martin Luther King is connecting the racial and social injustice in Birmingham to the struggle of America gaining independence from Britain.

By bringing this into his letter King means that in America it has always been a place seeking freedom and once achieved, maintaining that freedom. In a place that once seemed freedom from another nation, those in America should be free from social and racial segregation. Martin Luther Kings entire Letter from a Birmingham Jail has a main idea of achieving racial freedom by using civil disobedience. He believed that in order to obtain what African Americans desired, they needed to do so peacefully and they needed to increase pressure to the whites in community by not following the laws. Although at times it seemed as if the African Americans of the community would never achieve their goal and wanted to possibly use force or violence, he reminded them of civil disobedience and how it has worked in the past with other issues pertaining to racism. He also considers each persons argument against him however he says his point of view and justifies his argument as well. This is important to maintain civil disobedience because if one does not consider the other sides argument and only thinks they are right then there will be no progress and in the end they will never achieve their goal. Martin Luther King does this well in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail. He keeps the white communities prospective in mind while also stating reasons for his actions. He also agrees with the white community in that he and fellow protestors are breaking the law and are willing to pay for the consequences, all while trying to change laws towards the black race. This shows how he considered the white communities argument and his at the same time and noticed that although he is participating in the protest and leading other African Americans in the protest for good reason, they are breaking the law and therefore should pay for the consequences. Civil disobedience is the act of trying for change by the use of nonviolence or peaceful protests. In order to maintain civil disobedience one has to truly be reminded of their goal and peace. They also have to try to stay peaceful by considering both sides and always believing that they will achieve their end goal and not giving up. These are all things that Martin Luther King did in order to maintain civil obedience and achieve his final goal, racial freedom. Civil disobedience is something that is key to achieving a final goal. In life you have to be civil with others in order to get what you want because otherwise both sides will never come to a final conclusion or mutual agreement without destroying or causing major damage to the opposing side. Martin Luther King believed it to be a moral obligation to oppose unjust laws. This is why Martin Luther King started the protest to begin with but he decided to do so peacefully in order to maintain civil disobedience.

Socrates’ Perspective on Law and Morality: A Contrast to Civil Disobedience

In the Crito, Socrates does not agree to escape from prison as his friend urges him to do so. Socrates was in jail awaiting his execution. His friend visited him in jail and informed him that his execution will most likely be the next day. Socrates’ friend then says with the help of all of his friends he can successfully escape prison and his execution. Socrates continues to say no and does not want to escape his death or punishment. Socrates says that one should not disobey the law and they should suffer the consequencesnces the state imposes on them. Although he did not knowledgeably break the law and did it unintentionally, he thinks that he should pay the conesuences and face his punishment. I do not think that Socrates would agree with Martin Luther Kings standpoint on civil disobedience. “And is life worth living for us with that part of us corrupted that unjust action harms and just action benefits…” and “So one must never do wrong… Nor must one, when wrong, inflict wrong in return, as the majority believe, since one must never do wrong” (Plato 50–52). Socrates is saying that breaking the law, even if the law is unjust, is something that cannot be justified and it undermines the agreements that the person has made with the city. This shows the difference between Matin Luther King and Socrates felt on how they felt towards civil disobedience. Martin Luther King believed that one is morally obligated to disobey an unjust law while Socrates felt that even if a law is unjust then one must follow it because it is their obligation to follow the rules of the state they are living in. Socrates did not want to violate the laws of the city by escaping being that those laws were not in his favor. From this the reader can see that Socrates never meant to break any laws. Civil disobedience requires the intent of breaking a law to show the injustice of the law. Therefore Socrates did not participate in civil disobedience and would not agree with Martin Luther King. Socrates believed that if one is living in a country or state they must follow every law the state imposes on those living there. He considers it like a contract that one must follow in order to live there regardless if they believe the law is fair or not. Although Socrates’ friend continued to urge him to escape prison for many of the reasons being that he has a family and children he must tend to, Socrates still refused and questions what would be the morally right thing to do. After thinking Socrates says that he cannot escape prison because it would be morally incorrect. He thinks that if he escapes prison he will be breaking the “contract” he has with the state to follow all laws and receive punishment for breaking them. Socrates believed that since he is a citizen of Athens and enjoying all the benefits of living there and volunatarily staying he has a contract with the state to follow their laws and impositions. Therefore, if he violated this contract he would not only cause harm to himself but to his friends, family and the people Athens. Unlike Martin Luther King, Socrates finds it to be his moral obligation to follow the city’s laws even if they are unjustified and unfair. We can clearly see the difference in view points on civil disobedience between Martin Luther King and Socrates. We can see that Martin Luther King supports civil disobedience and would promote it in order to raise awareness to an unjust law. While on the other hand, Socrates would not support civil disobedience or promote it because he believes that one has a contract with the city and therefore should obey all laws imposed on them regardless if it is just or unjust.

Comparative Analysis: Differing Views of King and Socrates on Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience is the act of raising concern towards unjust laws imposed on a certain group of people. Martin Luther King in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail, addresses civil disobedience and shows how he supports it. He said that it is a moral obligation to raise awareness and demand change for unjust laws or acts. Martin Luther King thought that it is important to raise concern all while maintaining peace between both sides. In the Crito, Socrates brings up the idea of civil disobedience as well. However, Socrates’ view on civil disobedience differs from Martin Luther Kings. Socrates thought that it is a moral obligation to follow laws of the city because one has a contract with the city for living there and enjoying the benefits they need. Socrates felt that he could not escape prison because of his moral obligation to follow the laws even if they are not in favor of him. This shows how Socrates would not agree with Martin Luther King on civil disobedience. In conclusion, both Martin Luther King and Socrates have differing views on civil disobedience and on what is a moral obligation and what is not. Both Martin Luther King and Socrates have different ideas on what is morally correct and what is a moral obligation, as shown in both texts.

Extinction Rebellion is an activist group that pushes for change across the globe through nonviolent civil disobedience. Martin Luther King and Thomas Hobbes both believed that rules should be followed, but believed in two different sets of rules. On the one hand, Martin Luther King argued that if you break an unjust law, you must do so willingly and accept the penalty (Birmingham Jail Letter, Page 4). Hobbes, on the other hand, focused on the state of nature and the motive of self-interest in behavior. In this paper, I will first argue that Martin Luther King would think that XR is justified in engaging in activities that involve breaking the law, and second that Hobbes would not think they are justified. Finally, I will side with King and argue that civil disobedience is effective in bringing about real change that people can see and feel.

Martin Luther King believed in doing the right thing even if some laws were broken, as the letter from Birmingham Jail states (Martin Luther King, Letter), you may morally break an unjust law if you make no effort to evade the legal punishment for the unjust law you break. As Extinction Rebellion clearly stated, “We aren’t focussed on traditional systems like petitions or writing to our MPs and more likely to take risks (e.g. arrest jail time).” (XR, Our Strategy) As the group strives to push their movement forward they plan on using civil disobedience as a tool to get their message across. Martin Luther King believed XR is justified in engaging in activities that involve breaking the law, as mentioned they’re taking responsibility for their actions, this a key concept from Martin Luther King as he stated “ an individual who breaks a law..willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment …is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law.”(Birmingham Jail Letter, Page 4). Furthermore, I learned Martin Luther King’s political activism directly describes what XR is doing. As he believes in Nonviolence and Civil disobedience which is described in XR strategy “At the core of Extinction Rebellion’s philosophy is nonviolent civil disobedience” (XR, Our Strategy). XR’s movements are permissible to Martin Luther King as the activist group strongly believes in taking accountability for their actions as they did in Vancouver, a march down the street which disrupted traffic, the group leader later apologized stating they are sorry for the disruption, but that it’s the only way for change (Ctv News Vancouver, Conclusion). As Martin Luther King accepts XR’s methods and condones them from a natural law perspective. The key concept behind the natural law is peace, as the first law is to seek peace and follow it.

Contrastingly, Thomas Hobbes believed that the state of nature is self-interested. In this, Hobbes means that everyone acts only out of self-interest, meaning that the motivation behind an individual’s actions is always self-interested (Hobbes, Leviathan). For Hobbes, this is always the case. One does not act for any motive other than to satisfy one’s interests. However, this does not seem to be the motive for the actions of XR. XR conducts civil disobedience as a group and acts for selfless and humanitarian purposes. They work as a unit to combat the World War III era that they believe is already underway (XR, Our Vision). However, Hobbes does not believe that human beings act in such selfless ways. No one acts for the greater good or in a manner that is “self-sacrificial” (XR, Our Vision). Hobbes’ theory does not allow for this in any way. The only motive for action is self-interest, according to Hobbes. XR pursues the interests of their group as a whole, rather than each member’s interests, which is one way XR differs from Hobbes’ thinking. Another interesting thing about Hobbes is that he supports the act of war, and believes that it is inevitable due to the state of nature (Hobbes, Leviathan). This directly opposes the objectives of XR, because, as stated in their mission statement, they wish to avoid war (XR, Our Vision). Finally, according to Hobbes, everyone desires power and self-preservation at the end of the day (Hobbes, Leviathan). This contradicts XR’s mission statement, as they declare that they work as a group, as one unit, meaning that no person has more power than another.

Martin Luther King’s thinking supports civil disobedience and pushes for change in a physical, actionable way. He believes in the natural law, and that if an unjust law exists, one must disobey it, but suffer the consequences for doing so. I agree with Martin Luther King’s thinking over Hobbes’ thinking, as Hobbes does not allow for civil disobedience, and has a much more negative view of the state of nature. Firstly, I believe that civil disobedience is effective because it is a step in the right direction for making real change occur when unjust laws are in place. Without actions to raise awareness for a good cause, there will be no change. Without protesting and making a bold statement, people may not believe in what you stand for or see the real issues at hand. I also think that we shouldn’t be able to avoid the consequences of civil disobedience, which is why King’s stance also resonates with me. It wouldn’t make sense for people to just be able to defy laws without having to pay the price for doing so. If this was the case, everyone would defy the laws without consequence, which would be chaotic. However, King addresses this by stating that one must break an unjust law willingly and accept the penalty that comes with doing so. However, Hobbes’ view does not allow for this. Hobbes does not support the efforts of XR in trying to combat the World War III era or the climate crisis. He does not believe people are selfless in this way. In other words, he has a very pessimistic view of human nature and society as a whole. King does not share this idea but attempts to push for change that people can see and recognize. He believes that fighting for a greater cause is good and so do I. Hobbes and King are very different in their views, and I only support King’s views. Not only was King an influential figurehead for the civil rights movement, but his favoritism of natural law is also something that I value and respect.

In conclusion, I have explained why Martin Luther King would justify XR’s activities in breaking the law for the greater good, and why Thomas Hobbes would not justify them. Although both points of view have strengths, I agree with Martin Luther King’s philosophical standpoint, as he condones civil disobedience and breaking the law to enact change.

Developed in the early nineteenth century, transcendentalism was a philosophical movement that arose to pose objections to the general state of spirituality and intellectualism. As fathers of the transcendentalist movement, Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson endorsed principles of morality predicated upon higher spiritual laws. They argued that in order to experience personal liberty, one must align themselves with moral truth, as doing so would allow one to identify the masters within themselves. Both Emerson and Thoreau promoted that living by a higher moral truth has implications on our minds, the way we give our time, and the way we use our love. Through transcendentalism, Thoreau and Emerson revealed a prevailing paradox: being a free citizen does not equate to having freedom within the individual. The idea of such crude liberty inspired political leaders like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. in changing the face of politics in the years to come.

The United States of America is symbolically described as the land of the free, but what exactly does this freedom adumbrate? Thoreau cleverly establishes a difference between the political and moral freedom that exists within the individual. While the first deals with governmental influences, the latter concerns the individual. Although political freedom may exist, prejudice or social judgments on character traits result in the socially-binding slavery of any person. Furthermore, Thoreau maintained the idea that “…that government is best which does not govern at all” (Mehta 254). Going beyond the recognized political freedom, Thoreau attempted to salvage individual and spiritual freedom from social prejudice.

As passionate abolitionists, Thoreau and Emerson perceived African American slavery as an abstract concept pertaining to individual souls and their forces. Their opposition to slavery sprung from ideological influences like Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who postulated the importance of individual freedom. Thoreau and Emerson argued that meanness proceeds to slavery whereas nobleness results in freedom. One must construct his soul to stay noble and avoid submitting to the common infrastructure of the encompassing society.

During the mid-nineteenth century, when Thoreau and Emerson were writing, abolitionism emerged as a forerunning issue. Transcendentalists extended harsh images of slavery to color the reality of each citizen who willfully submits to the institutions of civilization without transcending the human form. Civilization, from a transcendentalist perspective, refers to a socially structured body of people who dedicate their values to a governmental sovereign rather than to individual moral guidance. Thoreau and Emerson identified various binding traps wrought throughout the infrastructure of society and constructively provided various means to transcend these personal constraints to freedom. The term ‘society’ within this context refers to a similar social infrastructure wherein cultural expectations commission thought.

Regarding governance, Thoreau does not condemn the government itself, but the mass of men who “serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies” (Levine et al. 904). These men are not individuals, but a “mass.” Instead of assuming the role of the painter or sculptor to make one’s body and soul into a masterpiece, “they put themselves on a level with wood and earth and stones; and wooden men can perhaps be manufactured that will serve the purpose as well” (Levine et al. 904). In contrast to Thoreau’s image of an individually created work of art, the man enslaved to the government does not use his materials to the extent of his potential, and, instead, allows the system to mold him into a mass production, replacing his life with “wood and earth and stones” (Levine et al. 904). The first way to assert one’s individual freedom is to recognize the materials that he or she has been given and to see the potential for construction within that bodily facility. Thoreau writes in the conclusion of Walden that “things do not change; we change, whereby we must have the courage to improve” (Levine et al. 993). Ultimately, transcendentalists frowned upon the false society of man which neglects heavenly comforts for the sake of earthly greatness or social acceptance.

In comparison to Thoreau’s view of the individual as a creator and artist of the self or the soul, Emerson advanced a process of reshaping, necessary for change within the individual, by taking the surrounding society and government into perspective. According to Emerson’s conception of democracy, the value lies within the “ability of all persons to shape their lives through thinking and thus to exercise their capacity for self-government” (Von Rautenfeld 184). For an individual to experience truth, both Emerson and Thoreau agreed that it is necessary to identify what is false, as falsity enslaves the individual into an illusory notion of truth and purpose. The blind follower, as the transcendentalists put it, does not know the truth, and the figurative bindings of society around his heart and mind are invisible. Thoreau and Emerson both used light imagery to identify the illumination of truth, and the obscurity of fallacy to further explain truth and falsity. Thoreau described the current state of America as “a mere shadow and reminiscence of humanity” (Levine et al. 904). The imagery symbolizes the darkness of fallacy, an established societal way of living made to imitate truth for individuals. Rather than capitulating to the darkness, Emerson argued that humanity should shine with real light and not with the borrowed reflection of light to further explain how shadow does not illuminate, and, therefore, would not inspire individuals.

The transcendentalists argued that every human is equipped with the means to achieve truth through an individual relationship with a Higher Power wherein moral development is possible. When the individual does not develop potential internally, that person lives as a shell of the virtue that is possible. They have settled upon the definition of a free man as a man first, and a countryman second. Thoreauvian ideologies teach men that outward freedom is in the measure of the inner freedom he has attained, and absolute freedom, as distinguished from mere political freedom, is in the identification of the moral and spiritual. When individuals attempt to conquer and learn to rule themselves, government, in the publicly-accepted sense of the term, will not be necessary at any cost.

Even though the transcendentalist movement only lasted ten years, it influenced society from a global perspective. Transcendentalist thought has directly influenced the New Thought Movement, a spiritual movement that promoted similar ideas, like intelligence within minds and essences of spirits, with the ideology that the mind has the capacity to overdrive matter. Not only did it influence the New Thought Movement, but it also affected how people approached politics, religion, and philosophy. These ideas were passed down and greatly influenced different religions, like Buddhism and Hinduism. Thoreau and Emerson immensely impacted the thinking of individuals, such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi. People believed that the civil disobedience campaign by these leaders could greatly affect the existence of the government structure. By conducting rebellious soul force and non-violent actions, a stage could be reached in which government loses the power to govern its citizens and people could rule themselves instead of relying on a system to do so, which aligns with Thoreauvian theories.

Inspired by Hindu texts like the Bhagavat Gita and the Upanishads, Thoreau articulated his beliefs through spiritual ideas of nature and soul. As seen in his accounts, he was an iconoclast and bore no religious stamp to his name; however, Thoreau found ample confirmation in the Laws of Manu, one of the most authoritative books of Hindu code, that favored ascetic rule and defiant individualism, which he was a strong supporter of. Thoreau was no yogi, nor a Buddhist or Hindu priest, but he was closer to these religious ideals than anyone else in mid-nineteenth century America, and not many people recognize the importance of that influence.

Inspired by Eastern religious texts and ideas, Thoreau constructed his essays, out of which, his two most influential pieces, “Civil Disobedience” and “Walden,” stood out the most as masterpieces of American literature. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau argued that citizens must disobey the rule of law if those laws prove to be unjust. His essay on Civil Disobedience quickly became a “bible for the satyagrahis in South Africa,” and the teachings from Thoreau were used by Mahatma Gandhi, The Father of India, for the “uplift of the down-trodden millions of Indian workers” (Mehta 256). Like Thoreau, Gandhi viewed the Bhagavat Gita as a “charter for liberation for all manner of humanity and hence for liberation from caste and colonialism” (Friedrich 56). These religious influences had driven both Gandhi and Thoreau into achieving moral satisfaction.

Gandhi and Thoreau both employed the method of civil disobedience for protest by exerting sole force and expressing their concern about the law in hopes of maximum cooperation with all people and institutions. The protest was hoped to range from “defiance on the part of the people all the way up to resignations from their offices on part of the officers” (Mehta 256). Mahatma Gandhi had seen a “practical man willing to practice his beliefs” in Thoreau (Hendrick 471). When asked about reading Thoreau’s works at the Second Round Table Conference in London, Gandhi responded that he “read Walden first in Johannesburg in South Africa in 1906” and how Thoreau’s ideas influenced him greatly. Gandhi even adopted some of Thoreau’s ideas and recommended the study of Thoreau to all his friends who were helping in “the cause of Indian independence” (Hendrick 463). The amount of indebtedness that Gandhi had for Thoreau was clearly seen in his 1942 appeal “To American Friends,” in which he wrote, “you have given me a teacher in Thoreau, who furnished me through his essay on the ‘Duty of Civil Disobedience’ scientific confirmation of what I was doing in South Africa” (Hendrick 462).

In hopes to gain independence from the British in India, Mahatma Gandhi referred to his form of nonviolence or civil disobedience as Satyagraha, meaning “truth force” or “love force.” Satyagraha meant that a person should follow seeking truth and love while refusing to participate in something he/she believes is wrong through nonviolent resistance. Using this principle, Gandhi guided his activism against the British empire and led India to independence on August 15th, 1947. As a Hindu mystic, Gandhi had adopted “the philosophy which was to affect millions of Indians and inspire them to defy the powerful British Empire” (Hendrick 463). In doing so, both Thoreau and Gandhi were kindred souls who sought truth, followed Hindu Brahmin literature, and “strove to save the struggling humanity” (Mehta 257).

However, Gandhi’s arguments and methods went deeper and expanded more across the nation than those of Thoreau. While Thoreau focused on exercising civil disobedience on an individual scale, Gandhi tried it on a very mass scale. Thoreau was more focused on arguing that “if 1000, if 100, if 10 men, – ten honest men -if one honest man in this state ceasing to hold slaves were to withdraw from his copartnership and be locked up in jail, it would be the abolition of slavery in America” (Mehta 256). On the contrary, Gandhi took inspiration from Thoreau’s words, but transformed it into a non-violent movement in which complete civil disobedience is “rebellion without the least element of violence in it” (Mehta 256). Gandhi protested through defiant non-violent marches with huge masses of those “down-trodden millions of Indian workers” (Mehta 256). He expected Britain to grant India independence after World War I; when it did not happen, Gandhi called for strikes and other acts of peaceful civil disobedience. The British sometimes struck back with violence, but Gandhi insisted Indians remain non-violent. Having been jailed many times for protests, Gandhi’s humble opinion was always that non-cooperation with evil is as much a duty as cooperation with good. Therefore, freedom is the freedom for “attaining the ideal not for pursuing fleeting passions” (Mehta 254).

Although many might think that Gandhi received back from America what was fundamentally the “philosophy of India after it had been distilled and crystallized in the mind of Thoreau,” the theories eventually made their way back to the United States, just better and more refined (Hendrick 463). Martin Luther King Jr., one of America’s most famous civil rights leaders, was heavily influenced by Mahatma Gandhi and heavily drew upon the Gandhian principle of non-violence in his own civil rights activism. King was already familiar with peaceful civil disobedience through writers like Thoreau, but he found heavy interest in Gandhi’s idea that oppressed people could use truth or love as weapons in their struggle for justice. Although he was inspired, King didn’t have a practical application for how to execute it until he was involved in the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 and 1956 in which he credits India’s Gandhi as the guiding light of the technique of nonviolent social change.

Martin Luther King Jr. had clearly laid out all the principles of nonviolence that he had employed during the Montgomery Boycott in his 1958 book “Stride Towards Freedom: The Montgomery Story.” King carried forward Gandhi’s commitments and Indians supported King in his endeavors because both shared common values, common strategies, and common struggles. Throughout most of the 20th century, Indians and African-Americans supported each other because Gandhi first struggled for social justice in South Africa where he “protested peacefully against discrimination against Asians as well as Africans” (Rao). Like Gandhi, King used civil disobedience as a means of effectuating government change. It took the form of mass, non-violent refusals to obey government commands. When invited to visit India to meet with leaders and discuss issues, King accepted the invitation and felt as if it was a “revelation in many ways, as if ‘the spear of frustration had been transformed ‘into a shaft of light’” (Rao).

In future years, Gandhi and King continued to inspire the leaders of nonviolent freedom struggles and political movements, from Gene Sharp to Nelson Mandela. Their lives and legacies as well as King’s journey to India still offer new paths to global peace and human progress. Transcendentalism not only affected the growth of other movements or religions, but it also impacted the behavior of American citizens. Although the beliefs of transcendentalism did not quickly change the thoughts of Americans, it helped them to build a stronger foundation on the idea of judging people based on morality instead of determining whether they are right or wrong. Modern movements like “Black Lives Matter” and the “Me Too” movement reveal that Thoreau’s theories of individualism and non-conformity are still prevalent to this day. Therefore, transcendentalism changed the face of politics and gave birth to a new era of autonomy within society.

Works Cited

1. Levine, Robert S., et al. The Norton Anthology of American literature. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2017. Print.
2. Mehta, Usha. “GANDHI AND THOREAU.” The Indian Journal of Political Science, vol. 23, no. 1/4, 1962, pp. 252–257. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/41853933.
3. Von Rautenfeld, Hans. “Thinking for Thousands: Emerson’s Theory of Political Representation in the Public Sphere.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 49, no. 1, 2005, pp. 184–197. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/3647721.
4. Hendrick, George. “The Influence of Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience’ on Gandhi’s Satyagraha.” The New England Quarterly, vol. 29, no. 4, 1956, pp. 462–471., www.jstor.org/stable/362139.
5. Friedrich, Paul. “Walden’s ‘Political Thoreau.’” The Concord Saunterer, vol. 16, 2008, pp. 45–58. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23395086.
6. Rao, Nirupama. “Gandhi’s ‘Light’ Guided MLK.” POLITICO, 8 Mar. 2013, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/03/mahatma-gandhis-lightguided-martin-luther-king-jr-088581.

The refusal to abide by certain laws or to pay taxes, as a nonviolent form of political protesting, is civil disobedience. These types of protests were very common during the 18th century or the Romanticism period of literature. Many civil disobedience acts powered pieces of literature still known to us today, for instance, “On Civil Disobedience” by Mohandas K. Gandhi, “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr, and “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau. Gandhi, King, and Thoreau all portrayed civil disobedience in a similar way by their social status, protesting unjust laws, and non-violent stance against the government.

Gandhi, King, and Thoreau showed civil disobedience in a similar way by having disobeyed an unjust or unfair law in order to create change. Thoreau was one of many Americans upset with the government during the Mexican War and the decisions of President Polk. Thoreau refused to pay taxes and had to spend one night in prison. He viewed the government as being selfish saying that there were “individuals using the standing government as their tool”, though the government is supposed to be there to better citizens’ lives. Since taxes are there to give money to fund the government citizens didn’t want to pay for poor decisions. Gandhi protested the British rule over India by breaking the law that didn’t allow Indians to make and sell salt, as a result, they had to purchase from the British who taxed the salt. He, too, was sent to prison, soon after he used the term “Satyagraha” which was what he used to describe how he sought reform without violence. In order for this to work, he knew that he would have consequences but he also knew that the British needed to know that their rule over India would soon be over. Finally, King was one the most prominent parts of America’s historical fight for racial equality, and all because he stood up against a lack of

The refusal to abide by certain laws or to pay taxes, as a nonviolent form of political protesting, is civil disobedience. These types of protests were very common during the 18th century or the Romanticism period of literature. Many civil disobedience acts powered pieces of literature still known to us today, for instance, “On Civil Disobedience” by Mohandas K. Gandhi, “Letter from Birmingham City Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr, and “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau. Gandhi, King, and Thoreau all portrayed civil disobedience in a similar way by their social status, protesting unjust laws, and non-violent stance against the government.

Gandhi, King, and Thoreau showed civil disobedience in a similar way by having disobeyed an unjust or unfair law in order to create change. Thoreau was one of many Americans upset with the government during the Mexican War and the decisions of President Polk. Thoreau refused to pay taxes and had to spend one night in prison. He viewed the government as being selfish saying that there were “individuals using the standing government as their tool”, though the government is supposed to be there to better citizens’ lives. Since taxes are there to give money to fund the government citizens didn’t want to pay for poor decisions. Gandhi protested the British rule over India by breaking the law that didn’t allow Indians to make and sell salt, as a result, they had to purchase from the British who taxed the salt. He, too, was sent to prison, soon after he used the term “Satyagraha” which was what he used to describe how he sought reform without violence. In order for this to work, he knew that he would have consequences but he also knew that the British needed to know that their rule over India would soon be over. Finally, King was one the most prominent parts of America’s historical fight for racial equality, and all because he stood up against a lack of civil rights that African Americans received, and he was arrested. He wanted changes for future generations explaining how the “fore-parents labored in this country without wages; they made cotton king, and they built the homes of their masters in the midst of brutal injustice and shameful humiliation”. Even though slavery was illegal most people still saw African Americans as lesser and the calvary allowed this to happen without punishment. These writers were protesting against rules that were unjust and unfair to all that were affected by them.

Gandhi, King, and Thoreau all showed civil disobedience in a similar way by all being normal citizens who wanted to make a change in the world they lived in. First came Thoreau, he wanted to change the government so that it was fair for everyone. Thoreau had brought up how he, a normal man wanted to make a change when he said: “to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men”. He believed that the government would not change unless someone took a stand, someone who is primarily affected by the government, that would be a citizen. Thoreau’s actions lead others to begin to make changes and stand up for what was right, such as Gandhi one of the Indian citizens that were struggling under British rule. Gandhi decided to go against the British without caring about the punishment received. After being arrested he stood strong for his country and wrote “you will have to ask our opinion about the laws that concern us”, meaning that Britain can no longer control what they can or can not do. Similar to Gandhi, King wanted to change the world he was living in, which was a world full of racial inequality. King himself being African American was exposed to this inequality from a young age along with millions of others just like him, but the difference between everyone else and King was that he stood up to change it. Protesting led to his incarceration and to his writing that “If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail”. He knew that there was going to be a change and that his life goal was to help make that change no matter what. Overall, all three writers were citizens who wanted to see a change in the world, so they took a stand.

Civil Disobedience is similarly shown by Gandhi, King, and Thoreau through non-violent protest being performed. Thoreau simply refused to pay taxes to protest against the government and even after being arrested he didn’t react violently. He knew that no change would come from violently acting out, but to protesting against a major part of the government. Then Gandhi used Thoreau’s actions to form an act of protest the satyagraha or truth-force, hence he decided to go and create his own salt to protest. He explains how there is no need“ to break another’s head; he may merely have his own head broken”, thus Gandhi showed how there was no need to be violent towards the opposer as long as you’re prepared to undertake any punishment. Similar to Gandhi and Thoreau, King protested non-violently against racial inequality, which lead to his incarceration. Following his release, he spoke in front of the country and even said: “I have consistently preached that nonviolence demands that the means we use must be as pure as the ends we seek”. All of King’s efforts were there to reflect the nonviolent future he wanted for America. To conclude Gandhi, King, and Thoreau showed civil disobedience in a similar way through non-violent protest.

In conclusion, Gandhi, King, and Thoreau all portrayed civil disobedience in a similar way by their social status, protesting unjust laws, and non-violent stance against the government. All of them are normal citizens who just wanted to change how their world was, for instance, in the case of Thoreau he changed the way people show the government’s actions by refusing to pay taxes. The laws they broke were unjust towards those affected by them, for example, the British salt law that Gandhi had protested. Finally, their non-violent protests whether it be a refusal to pay taxes or protesting in a major city. Their efforts made a difference in the world with

Many people still argue whether the Umbrella Movement is a civil disobedience protest or a riot. The nature of them is different, the former is to fight for the rights and interests of society but the latter is to fight for self-interest and violence is involved. Therefore, seeking the nature of the umbrella movement is conducive to unraveling the argument. Also, the reasons for many participants in the umbrella movement will be figured out. Although the umbrella movement was not successful, universal suffrage did not come true, the Hong Kong society is and will be affected. In addition, the impact on Hong Kong society mostly are negative such as the autonomy declining and the society being lacerated. Therefore, there are some analyses of the future of Hong Kong.

Firstly, to know the nature of the umbrella movement, the definitions of civil disobedience protest, and riot have to be clarified. Civil disobedience was invented by Henry David Thoreau in 1848. It was used to describe his rejection of paying the state tax imposed by the US government to carry out a war in Mexico (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013). There are several features of civil disobedience protest (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013) such as conscientiousness, communication, publicity, and nonviolence. Conscientiousness refers to the reason for disobedient breaking the law is the perception of the societal interests. Communication is that in the case of a flagrant violation of the law, a person usually has a forward-looking and backward-looking goal. She not only asks for her negation and condemnation of a particular law or policy but also raises public concern about this particular issue, thereby causing changes in the law or policy. Publicity means that disobedience is not concealed or secret but it merely informs the legal authorities openly and fairly. And, violence and civil disobedience are contradictory. On the other hand, a riot means that it is a form of civil disorder characterized by unorganized groups slamming in sudden violence, destruction, or other criminal incidents. Riots usually involve the destruction and destruction of private and public property ( Social Science LibreTexts, 2019). Besides, it can be seen that the rioters usually have no conscientiousness or fear of legal sanctions. For example, there are commonalities between the 2011 England Riots and the 2016 Mong Kok Riot, the rioters both wore masks to prevent their faces were recognized through CCTV. Therefore, it can be seen that violence and the use of force always will not be a concern in civil disobedience protests except in self-defense when facing armed suppression. However, rioters always damage society and attack police officers aggressively. There is a huge difference between civil disobedience protests and riots. After the definition of civil disobedience protest and riot are clarified, it is easy to see the nature of the umbrella movement is identical to civil disobedience protest or riot. The three initiators, Chu Yiu Ming, Chan Kin Man, and Tai Yiu Ting, surrendered after the umbrella movement had occurred. Also, they informed the police and public of the start date and the end date of central. Besides, the participants revolted against the police officers only when they were thrown 87 tear gas bombs, a kind of self-defense. Most importantly, the umbrella movement aimed to strive for universal suffrage, a public interest and ideal. Thus, it can be concluded that the nature of the umbrella movement is a civil disobedience protest.

More than ten thousand protesters participated in the umbrella movement but there were different reasons for participation among them. In the beginning, there were around 30,000 people on the streets but the number of participants grew to 50,000 after the police officers used tear gas bombs against the protesters ( South China Morning Post, 2014). It shows that the aim of some participants who participated in the umbrella movement was to protect and support the unarmed and helpless protesters. They could not bear to see the protesters who did not act in any violent behaviour, treated with tear gas bombs. Therefore, the most important thing to those protesters was not the achievement of universal suffrage, but the safety and life of their compatriots. The second type of protesters followed the herd, they did not understand the purpose of the civil disobedience protest but seeking for conformity. This kind of conformity can be regarded as compliance, an individual accepts impact because he or she hopes to reach an approving reaction from others especially the significant ones such as family and friends (McLeod, 2016). The way of thinking of these kinds of protesters may be that they do not want to miss any collective memory in their social circle. The last and most important type of protesters was that they wanted universal suffrage could be implemented to pursue the expected democracy. They hoped that their chief executive could be generated by one man one vote after the National People’s Congress had decided in 2007 that the chief executive would be generated through universal suffrage.

There are numerous impacts after the umbrella movement existed. And, it is thought that most impacts were not beneficial to Hong Kong Society. For example, peripheral nationalism exists again will damage the relationship between Hong Kong citizens and the central government. It is essentially opposed to the mobilization of the edge of the integration strategy around the center (Seiler, 1989). In nationalist literature, peripheral nationalism is defined as the claim of a unique identity by people living in specific territories of a nation-state. Conceptually, peripheral nationalism does not care about “realizing an independent state”; in fact, it is a complex phenomenon involving a variety of political propositions, including the protection of local culture the emphasis on regional autonomy, and the pursuit of complete division (Fong, 2017). For example, the peripheral nationalist movements in Wales, Brittany, and Friesland are mainly to promote the language of the region, while in Galicia, peripheral nationalists focus on requiring greater regional autonomy. In other regions, such as Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, and Corsica, peripheral nationalist political development has become a continuing violent campaign to pursue territorial division. However, peripheral nationalism in each territory has one thing in common, preventing the entry of a centralized state (Fong, 2017). Peripheral nationalism is another by-product of nationalism, that is, national building nationalism, defined as the center consciously “absorbing or integrating culturally distinctive territories in specific countries”. Nationalist scholars generally believe that France is a pioneer in nation-building nationalism because it effectively integrates various regions into ‘an indivisible country.’ However, this process of integration will cause more and more people to realize the unique geographical identity of the surrounding areas and bring ‘the moment of resistance against the center. From this perspective, peripheral nationalism can be regarded as the reaction to the center’s integration strategy for the center (Fong, 2017). It is seen that peripheral nationalist sentiment has a growing trend. In the 1970s, Hong Kong quickly became a metropolis, forming a new identity among residents, and Hong Kong people, and forming a farther distance from the feeling of ‘belonging to the Chinese nation.’ In the 1980s and 1990s, political controversies surrounding the imminent transfer of sovereignty further consolidated the distinctive Hong Kong identity based on Hong Kong’s liberal system and the values of the rule of law and freedom. Speech and human rights. To a large extent, a unique Hong Kong identity has gradually evolved into “a unique form of nationalism” that emphasizes the uniqueness of Hong Kong and China. It must be emphasized that, unlike the decades from the 1970s to the 21st century, the identity of Hong Kong people is largely based on the socio-economic superiority of Hong Kong people to mainlanders. Since 2009, this identity has been revived in the new context of we, Hong Kongers. Resistance to ‘invaders’ (continental people). To apply the concept of peripheral nationalism to Hong Kong, the revival of Hong Kong’s identity in recent years is a reactionary, aimed at defending Hong Kong’s autonomy, core values, people’s resentment towards lifestyles such as the influx of mainland tourists, and simplifying and the language of traditional Chinese, against the merger strategy of Beijing (Fong, 2017). Peripheral nationalism is fundamentally a peripheral resistance in the face of threats of assimilation and integration into the center. The original territory-wide telephone survey commissioned by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Plan in 2015 best illustrates the dynamics of nationalist sentiment in Hong Kong. The telephone survey showed that the average score of a high degree of autonomy was 8.13 (out of 10), while 60.7% of the respondents expressed their strong agreement and strongly agreed that ‘Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy has now entered’. Among the respondents, 61.8% said that the Central People’s Government is ‘the greatest threat to Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.’

What are the conditions, if any, that would justify the use of violence to oppose an unjust legal system?

Introduction

Political resistance continues to manifest in different forms and to varying degrees throughout the modern age. Despite its critics, civil disobedience has generally come to be considered a permissible mode of resistance. The philosophical debate that I seek to engage centers on the distinctly more controversial question of whether the use of violence for political purposes, objectively considered an extremity of disobedience, is ever morally justifiable within an unjust legal system.

Violence is prima facie a wrong and a source of evil. Employing violence as part of a political maneuver is demonstrably more prone to cause consequences for protestors as well as the broader society when compared to other modes of resistance, hence its wide condemnation amongst scholars and activists. Those who oppose the use of violence have offered much credible support for its absence in the course of disobedience. However, I challenge the attitude which supports the complete proscription of violence as neglecting the legitimate potential of a moral justification arising for it under extreme circumstances, albeit infrequently. To frame my response, this paper shall be divided into three sections.

It is necessary that first I examine what gives rise to law’s authority as our attitude towards the permissibility of disobedience will be dependent on the school of thought to which we attribute ourselves. By comparing the merits of Social Contract Theory, as it is referenced by Socrates in Plato’s Crito, with that of Raz’s Normal Justification Thesis, I shall be arguing that the latter thesis offers us the most satisfactory basis for obedience.

Secondly, I shall be defending the position that civil disobedience is justifiable, drawing on the works of Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rawls, and Greenwalt. I shall also be considering arguments surrounding the influence that the rule of law and democracy may have over this philosophy. Ultimately, their purported ability to render non-violent resistance unjustifiable will be rejected. This will provide the foundation for a critical analysis of the more heavily contended and central issue of violent protest.

The final section shall concentrate on my primary contention for this paper, that violence to oppose an unjust legal system can be justified when consistent with four principle conditions; (a) There is reasonable belief that violent resistance will be effective and non-violent resistance will be ineffective at changing the law, (b) There is reasonable belief that violence will result in a lesser evil, (c) The violent resistance is strictly directed at the ‘forces’ and (d) There is a willingness to accept punishment unless the subject is reacting to violent oppression. Failure to adhere to these conditions would create a context in which any moral justification said to arise for violence is negated.

I) The authority of law

An individual’s willingness to resist the law will depend on their philosophy of what gives the law authority. In the foundational work of Plato’s Crito, Socrates subscribes to the Social Contract Theory. The theory is premised on civil society and government emerging from a state of nature through a social contract in which people relinquish their natural rights to property and liberty over to the state, which becomes responsible for protecting and enforcing these rights. The exchange requires society to strictly obey the authority of the state where it is successful in protecting society’s natural rights, thus forming the basis for a legitimate government. Here, Socrates believed that wronging the state, although its laws may be unjust, is itself an injustice that should be mitigated by compliance. Furthermore, Socrates argued that a state could not function unless people respected the law, as the refusal of citizens to obey laws that they find unjust could result in societal chaos. Whilst this claim holds an element of validity, it lacks the flexibility to account for conditions which, if satisfied, may justify disobedience and the use of violence thereafter, as shall be argued throughout this essay.

In Plato’s earlier work Minos, we are presented with the argument that laws are binding as a collective; one has no right to accept some whilst rejecting others. It provides us with an insight into how Socrates may react to substantively unjust laws from a different angle to that taken in Crito. Socrates would demonstrate a healthy skepticism towards evil resolutions, at least considering them a different kind of law to good resolutions. Crito and Minos offer, to some extent, a contrast in Socrates’ attitude towards the obligation to obey the law. Crito suggests that the obligation to obey is absolute. Law should not be resisted where the state upholds its end of the social contract. On the other hand, we can interpret from Minos that there may be a threshold for law’s substantive unjustness which, if exceeded, rescinds the obligation to obey. Despite their differences, it can confidently be deduced that Plato generally submits a strong obligation to obey the law.

On the other hand, Raz in ‘The Authority of Law’ proposed his Normal Justification Thesis which offers both a clearer and sounder way of navigating our obligation to obey the law. This thesis expresses the notion that law claims authority and presents itself as a directive on how to act. Ultimately, its purpose is to facilitate the welfare of both society and all individuals within it. Insofar as the law is successful in its purpose, we must obey. Raz’s theory resembles much of Finnis’ Natural Law Theory in ‘Natural Law and Natural Rights’. For Finnis, the purpose of the law is to solve coordination problems for society and so legal authority acts as an agent which employs its expertise and logic to create law as a directive that engages our practical reasoning. The obligation upon the law’s subjects to obey therefore depends on the capacity of the law to further the ‘common good’.

Finnis believes there is a presumptive moral obligation to obey the law which may be offset where ‘lawmakers exploit their opportunity’ by making laws that contravene any of the four principal types of injustice which he identifies. This includes laws made for some ‘improper purpose’, laws that ‘go beyond [lawmakers] jurisdiction’, the legal authority that is exercised ‘contrary to requirements of matter and form’, and a stipulation that is ‘substantively unjust’. On the other hand, Raz makes the most convincing assertion that there is an occasional presumptive obligation to obey which can arise incrementally in different ways, such as by promoting justice or preventing harm.

The attraction of Raz’s thesis is that our obligation to obey works in a bottom-up structure that encourages us to follow our conscience and rationalize laws before obeying. Overall, Raz and Finnis can be understood to commonly reject Social Contract Theories, finding law’s authority based on an approach that appreciates law as an exercise of practical reasoning from authority, communicated to individuals of the state which then stimulates their practical reasoning to collectively advance the common good. We should rely on the rational faculties of individuals in tandem with legal structures as opposed to subscribing purely to a higher authority, based on a social contract, which has faltered in the past and may continue to do so in the future. Based on Raz’s credible theory, there is latitude for disobedience in an unjust legal system. Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rawls, and Greenwalt offer a variety of arguments for why civil disobedience is justified and should be exercised.

II) Civil disobedience

Although conscientious objection is indeed a form of resistance, it is best understood as a private action for personal exemption against individual laws which may be immoral or impious as opposed to a strategy for political change. As such, the focus of this section shall primarily concern civil disobedience in the exploration of non-violent methods of disobedience. For this essay, civil disobedience shall be defined as non-violent resistance against the commands of an authority in power.

The term ‘Civil Disobedience’ derives from Henry David Thoreau’s first essay published in 1849. The historical importance of Thoreau’s essay is illuminated when contrasted with the work of legal theorists through the 16th-18th centuries such as Hobbes and Kant who, having devoted writing to the Social Contract Theory discussed above, ultimately hold the view that there is an absolute or near absolute obligation to obey law respectively. Thoreau contributed to the recent diversion from this legal theory, highlighting the importance of civil disobedience in response to unjust laws.

In his work, Thoreau propounds the idea that the ‘Individual conscience should not be subservient to the government, but should be independent and even prioritized’. Essentially, Thoreau recognizes the principal purpose of government, endorsing the motto ‘That government is best which governs not at all’ as ‘Government is at best but an expedient’ for society, thus demonstrating compatibility with Raz’s Normal Justification Thesis. Thoreau also provides compelling reasons for not engaging in or supporting injustice by responding to it with action. To an extent, Thoreau considers passive subscription a way of facilitating injustice. He argues that activities such as paying taxes that contribute towards an unjust cause are an ‘implicit way of creating injustice by otherwise well-meaning people’. Rather, ‘Men should revolt against the ‘machine’ of oppression’.

King’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ expresses a similar notion but from a different perspective. He writes ‘Any law that degrades human personality is unjust’, and goes beyond mere justification by asserting ‘one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws’. Agreeing with St. Augustine, he believed they should not be considered laws at all. As an egalitarian, King rightly pronounced that the denial of the right to march was ordered discriminatorily and based on race, meaning it contravened principles of equality. As such, King wrote ‘I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust: is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law’. For King, civil disobedience is not considered mere lawlessness but instead regarded as a key method for addressing the incorrectness of unjust laws.

Thoreau concurs with King that a moral obligation arises to not practically support unjust law, but to engage in an active form of resistance; ‘A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority’. Thoreau expresses dissatisfaction with the belief that democratic processes are sufficient to rectify injustice. A valid reason offered for this is that often, the injustice of the law is a result of the ‘Proper processes themselves being unjust or inadequate in fixing the justice’, as was the case in South Africa at the time of Apartheid. However, we can comprehend an unjust legal system that exists within a democratic structure. One may argue that law is rendered just on the basis that it derives from a democratic state that possesses adequate channels for legal change. In opposition to this, Rawls explains the unhindered importance of civil disobedience in a constitutional democracy.

Essentially for Rawls, the objective of civil disobedience is to appeal to the community’s sense of justice. He writes that it is employed as a means to serve the majority ‘fair notice’ that in the ‘sincere and considered opinion’ of the disobedient, ‘the conditions of free cooperation are being violated.’ Whilst Rawls understands that a democratic society is good and promotes equality, he recognizes that the pace at which structures of democratic governance effectuate change may be relatively slow and so civil disobedience can be a necessary measure for accelerating needed change. Although Rawls’s broader theory for the justification of civil disobedience possesses many flaws, a few of which shall be addressed in the next paragraph, the extracted argument here is a sensible one and echoes the important message delivered by King, ‘Justice too long delayed is justice denied’.

Greenwalt in ‘Justifying Nonviolent Disobedience’ takes a more forceful stance and endorses civil disobedience beyond the scope that Rawls outlines. His criticism of Rawls explores three issues. Firstly his restriction on the permissibility of civil disobedience to only clear injustices of a substantial magnitude against basic rights, secondly the exclusion of circumstances in which civil disobedience is utilized to cause an inconvenience that becomes intolerable to the majority, and finally Rawls’ exclusion of appeals directed at a minority. Significantly, Greenwalt believes that by applying the pressure of inconvenience, civil disobedience may ‘achieve a concession that the majority would not accord out of its sense of justice.’ Greenwalt raises a significant point here. It is entirely possible that unless there is a level of disturbance to social operations, those who engage in civil disobedience may be neglected. The recent protests of Extinction Rebellion are a prime example of this, having received greater media coverage and support amongst people following public demonstrations such as road blockades.

Civil disobedience could appear to conflict with the rule of law. This influences Rawls’ limitations as he asserts that disobedience that threatens the rule of law should not be embarked upon. However, it is a misconception of the principle to believe that the rule of law would simply collapse unless every stipulation is obeyed. The predominant function of the rule of law is to limit the authority of government and to hold it accountable. Indeed, we should appreciate that through civil disobedience, people of the state are fulfilling this function by acting as a further check and balance for lawmakers. Accordingly, civil disobedience should be regarded as bolstering the rule of law.

In summary, civil disobedience is a powerful political instrument possessing an array of justifications for its use in the effort to effectuate positive change in an unjust legal system. Engaging in civil disobedience requires nobility and ardent rejection of the laws imposed on society, reflecting the conscientiousness of the disobedient which is honorable in itself. It facilitates progress that cannot be guaranteed through democratic processes and works as a useful tool to highlight injustice to both the subjects and authority within a state. Indeed, when an unjust law affects our conscience, a moral obligation arises to disobey in pursuit of furthering the common good for society and promoting equality. I shall now distinguish violence from civil disobedience and argue that it may be justified in extreme circumstances.

III) Violence

Semantically, the term ‘violence’ carries negative emotive force. It holds connotations of aggression and immorality, creating somewhat of a prima facie paradox when considering violence under the theme of moral justification. However, violence is more dimensional than this and can be a useful tool for counteracting and suppressing greater evils in a particularly unjust legal system. For this paper, violence shall be normatively defined as ‘Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, threaten or kill someone or something’.

Gandhi was a thoroughly committed pacifist and repudiated arguments for violence. Indeed, we can appreciate the success of his movements as they lead to the self-determination of India and the retreat of British colonial authority. Gandhi embraced ‘Satyagraha’, a philosophy that aimed to communicate with the oppressor through voluntary suffering with the objective of ‘[Melting] the heart of his opponent’ and ‘[Opening] the eyes of his understanding’. The religious undertone to Gandhi’s political struggle could be conceived as something more akin to a pilgrimage than resistance. Essentially, he held the belief that through active and proactive resistance, those who were at the peril of an unjust regime could tempt oppressors through a rational argument that would evoke sympathy or at least a reasoning process that would lead to justice prevailing. It is evident that when confronted with force as aggressive as the Nazi regime, Gandhi would continue to pursue the pacifistic approach as he believed that there is something beyond the tangible that guarantees justice. This notion can be seen to have influenced King in his statement ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ Whilst I embrace Gandhi for mitigating the use of violence, his doctrine cannot be universalized. The argument that any tyrannical authority can be compelled to engage in a dialogue that leads to the reversal of an unjust legal system cannot be applied in every instance. Further, it presupposes powerful governments enforcing unjust laws possess a moral compass that can be reconfigured, or indeed a high degree of rationality; the paradigm example being Hitler and his party.

Nelson Mandela’s campaign acknowledged the limits of nonviolent resistance. Despite agreeing with Gandhi’s tactics and aspiring to avoid violence, he deemed it apparent that nonviolent methods of disobedience would be futile. Mandela stated that he did not commit sabotage due to a ‘love for violence’. Instead, he ‘planned it as a result of calm and sober assessment of the political situation’ which exploited his people for many years. Apartheid enforced censorship of political opposition, leaving Mandela in a position where he either accepted a permanent state of inferiority or [defied] the Government’. Defiance did not begin with violent recourse but later amounted to it after further legislation and the South African government’s exertion of force. This sequence of events alludes to the commonly accepted principle of self-defense, which provides strong ground for the justification of violence as it does in criminal law. Although Mandela diverged from the nonviolent ideals of Gandhi and King, he too was motivated by the aim of reconciliation which he pursued in his life and time in prison. It is possible that Mandela’s resistance would fall outside of my formula, particularly condition (b), with controversies surrounding the severity and extent of violence used in retaliation. Striving for reconciliation in the course of violent disobedience is therefore a positive quality that would contribute towards fulfilling the conditions for a moral justification to arise. I shall now deal with each condition individually and provide reasoning for why collectively, they justify violent disobedience.

Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

American transcendentalist and philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, wrote the essay “Civil Disobedience” in response to slavery and Americans’ involvement in the Mexican-American War. Thoreau practiced what he preached, spending the night in jail for non-payment of taxes in protest of the Mexican-American War. Throughout his essay, he shares his idea, which is “That government is best which governs least;” (Thoreau, 1) by using rhetorical language along with his own experiences to persuade others to come around to his way of thinking. Thoreau was not trying to target a specific audience but to make a populist appeal in favor of less government. Thoreau drew upon his own experience to make his story relatable to his audience. Thoreau’s use of diction, tone, appeals, and figurative language was to make it appeal to his readers by making them entertaining and sincere.

Thoreau took his case to the public by reciting it in public in Concord. Hoping to rally people to his side, he used personal experience and the use of rhetorical questions. Giving the audience the chance to decide for itself whether or not it agreed with him. In his tone, he shows anger and indignation at the government for the hysteria that surrounded the Mexican-American war and does not feel a citizen should have to pay a tax to support something they find morally troubling. His diction created a sense of urgency and treated this as a problem with the government that needed to be solved immediately. With this diction along with an angry, passionate, and independent tone, he could persuade his audience for others to turn to his way of thinking. In Thoreau’s essay, he uses a momentous and confident tone with his statements such as, “For the government is an expedient, by which man would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it”. (Thoreau 1) This presents Thoreau’s contempt for government and the moral question of whether one should be forced to be taxed for something one finds morally repugnant. His diction and tone are one of indignation and he speaks from personal experience and is relatable to his audience. Being imprisoned gave him a unique perspective on government and its workings. Hoping to capture his audience, he vies to make it immediate and timely. In this manner, Thoreau’s diction and tone are to appeal to his audience’s sense of right and wrong.

Thoreau’s use of appeals in his essay was also a major part of persuading, garnering sympathy, and providing a logical argument for his cause. Pathos is used to evoke strong emotional responses from either the listener or the reader. Thoreau makes a powerful appeal to both patriotism and widely held religious beliefs of the time. By evoking both the Bible and the Constitution, “They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility…” (Thoreau 14), he appeals to his audience’s prevailing belief systems. Along with a powerful use of pathos, Thoreau also utilizes ethos to appear credible to his readers. Thoreau himself had refused to pay the poll tax for six years due to his stance on slavery. He also was involved in many abolitionist groups and helped slaves escape their servitude. “Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.” (Thoreau 6), this quote illustrates Thoreau’s strong moral stance on issues. His argument about being government should not force people to give up their moral beliefs. He also uses logos to declare his argument and how the government should represent the wants and needs of its people. Appealing to his audience’s common sense gives his writing a more populist appeal.

Thoreau’s use of figurative language was another way to gain his reader’s attention. By utilizing different forms of figurative language, he can put that to use to get his point across about the relationship the government has with its people. His use of metaphor such as comparing the government to a machine. The machine can also be seen as a metaphor for a soul-crushing bureaucracy. Thoreau also uses simile when he describes jail as, “like traveling to a far country”. In this way, he evokes his readers’ imaginations and is much more literary than the standard political rant. Thoreau’s use of paradox is evident in his assertion that one must be willing to accept the consequences of standing up to unjust laws by breaking them. Along with his use of other figurative language, he adds personification by comparing the government to an actual human being. By doing this, he is allowing his readers another way to think about the government as a very personal thing rather than some faceless entity. Thoreau operates figurative language into his essay to present a more literary and richer experience for the reader.

Thoreau was a man of grand passion who advocated for a simple life and the freedom to be left alone. “Civil Disobedience” is still referenced today and was cited by Gandhi as a significant influence on him. His use of the rhetorical triangle and figurative language makes his work accessible to anyone. Thoreau used rhetorical devices to give the readers a unique perspective and get them thinking about the cause he is so emotional about. Thoreau was a common man, writing for the common man, and he used a full palette of literary devices at his disposal. The passion of his conviction comes through in the prose. Thoreau’s passion and emotion are infused in all of his writing and whatever flaws he may have as a writer, it is more than made up for by his enthusiasm and the unwavering conviction to his cause.

Many people still argue whether the Umbrella Movement is a civil disobedience protest or a riot. The nature of them is different, the former is to fight for the rights and interests of society but the latter is to fight for self-interest and violence is involved. Therefore, seeking the nature of the umbrella movement is conducive to unraveling the argument. Also, the reasons for many participants in the umbrella movement will be figured out. Although the umbrella movement was not successful, universal suffrage did not come true, the Hong Kong society is and will be affected. In addition, the impact on Hong Kong society mostly are negative such as the autonomy declining and the society being lacerated. Therefore, there are some analyses of the future of Hong Kong.

Firstly, to know the nature of the umbrella movement, the definitions of civil disobedience protest, and riot have to be clarified. Civil disobedience was invented by Henry David Thoreau in 1848. It was used to describe his rejection of paying the state tax imposed by the US government to carry out a war in Mexico (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013). There are several features of civil disobedience protest (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2013) such as conscientiousness, communication, publicity, and nonviolence. Conscientiousness refers to the reason for disobedient breaking the law is the perception of the societal interests. Communication is that in the case of a flagrant violation of the law, a person usually has a forward-looking and backward-looking goal. She not only asks for her negation and condemnation of a particular law or policy but also raises public concern about this particular issue, thereby causing changes in the law or policy. Publicity means that disobedience is not concealed or secret but it merely informs the legal authorities openly and fairly. And, violence and civil disobedience are contradictory. On the other hand, a riot means that it is a form of civil disorder characterized by unorganized groups slamming in sudden violence, destruction, or other criminal incidents. Riots usually involve the destruction and destruction of private and public property ( Social Science LibreTexts, 2019). Besides, it can be seen that the rioters usually have no conscientiousness or fear of legal sanctions. For example, there are commonalities between the 2011 England Riots and the 2016 Mong Kok Riot, the rioters both wore masks to prevent their faces were recognized through CCTV. Therefore, it can be seen that violence and the use of force always will not be a concern in civil disobedience protests except in self-defense when facing armed suppression. However, rioters always damage society and attack police officers aggressively. There is a huge difference between civil disobedience protests and riots. After the definition of civil disobedience protest and riot are clarified, it is easy to see the nature of the umbrella movement is identical to civil disobedience protest or riot. The three initiators, Chu Yiu Ming, Chan Kin Man, and Tai Yiu Ting, surrendered after the umbrella movement had occurred. Also, they informed the police and public of the start date and the end date of central. Besides, the participants revolted against the police officers only when they were thrown 87 tear gas bombs, a kind of self-defense. Most importantly, the umbrella movement aimed to strive for universal suffrage, a public interest and ideal. Thus, it can be concluded that the nature of the umbrella movement is a civil disobedience protest.

More than ten thousand protesters participated in the umbrella movement but there were different reasons for participation among them. In the beginning, there were around 30,000 people on the streets but the number of participants grew to 50,000 after the police officers used tear gas bombs against the protesters ( South China Morning Post, 2014). It shows that the aim of some participants who participated in the umbrella movement was to protect and support the unarmed and helpless protesters. They could not bear to see the protesters who did not act in any violent behaviour, treated with tear gas bombs. Therefore, the most important thing to those protesters was not the achievement of universal suffrage, but the safety and life of their compatriots. The second type of protesters followed the herd, they did not understand the purpose of the civil disobedience protest but seeking for conformity. This kind of conformity can be regarded as compliance, an individual accepts impact because he or she hopes to reach an approving reaction from others especially the significant ones such as family and friends (McLeod, 2016). The way of thinking of these kinds of protesters may be that they do not want to miss any collective memory in their social circle. The last and most important type of protesters was that they wanted universal suffrage could be implemented to pursue the expected democracy. They hoped that their chief executive could be generated by one man one vote after the National People’s Congress had decided in 2007 that the chief executive would be generated through universal suffrage.

There are numerous impacts after the umbrella movement existed. And, it is thought that most impacts were not beneficial to Hong Kong Society. For example, peripheral nationalism exists again will damage the relationship between Hong Kong citizens and the central government. It is essentially opposed to the mobilization of the edge of the integration strategy around the center (Seiler, 1989). In nationalist literature, peripheral nationalism is defined as the claim of a unique identity by people living in specific territories of a nation-state. Conceptually, peripheral nationalism does not care about “realizing an independent state”; in fact, it is a complex phenomenon involving a variety of political propositions, including the protection of local culture the emphasis on regional autonomy, and the pursuit of complete division (Fong, 2017). For example, the peripheral nationalist movements in Wales, Brittany, and Friesland are mainly to promote the language of the region, while in Galicia, peripheral nationalists focus on requiring greater regional autonomy. In other regions, such as Northern Ireland, the Basque Country, and Corsica, peripheral nationalist political development has become a continuing violent campaign to pursue territorial division. However, peripheral nationalism in each territory has one thing in common, preventing the entry of a centralized state (Fong, 2017). Peripheral nationalism is another by-product of nationalism, that is, national building nationalism, defined as the center consciously “absorbing or integrating culturally distinctive territories in specific countries”. Nationalist scholars generally believe that France is a pioneer in nation-building nationalism because it effectively integrates various regions into ‘an indivisible country.’ However, this process of integration will cause more and more people to realize the unique geographical identity of the surrounding areas and bring ‘the moment of resistance against the center. From this perspective, peripheral nationalism can be regarded as the reaction to the center’s integration strategy for the center (Fong, 2017). It is seen that peripheral nationalist sentiment has a growing trend. In the 1970s, Hong Kong quickly became a metropolis, forming a new identity among residents, and Hong Kong people, and forming a farther distance from the feeling of ‘belonging to the Chinese nation.’ In the 1980s and 1990s, political controversies surrounding the imminent transfer of sovereignty further consolidated the distinctive Hong Kong identity based on Hong Kong’s liberal system and the values of the rule of law and freedom. Speech and human rights. To a large extent, a unique Hong Kong identity has gradually evolved into “a unique form of nationalism” that emphasizes the uniqueness of Hong Kong and China. It must be emphasized that, unlike the decades from the 1970s to the 21st century, the identity of Hong Kong people is largely based on the socio-economic superiority of Hong Kong people to mainlanders. Since 2009, this identity has been revived in the new context of we, Hong Kongers. Resistance to ‘invaders’ (continental people). To apply the concept of peripheral nationalism to Hong Kong, the revival of Hong Kong’s identity in recent years is a reactionary, aimed at defending Hong Kong’s autonomy, core values, people’s resentment towards lifestyles such as the influx of mainland tourists, and simplifying and the language of traditional Chinese, against the merger strategy of Beijing (Fong, 2017). Peripheral nationalism is fundamentally a peripheral resistance in the face of threats of assimilation and integration into the center. The original territory-wide telephone survey commissioned by the Hong Kong University Public Opinion Plan in 2015 best illustrates the dynamics of nationalist sentiment in Hong Kong. The telephone survey showed that the average score of a high degree of autonomy was 8.13 (out of 10), while 60.7% of the respondents expressed their strong agreement and strongly agreed that ‘Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy has now entered’. Among the respondents, 61.8% said that the Central People’s Government is ‘the greatest threat to Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy.’

What are the conditions, if any, that would justify the use of violence to oppose an unjust legal system?

Introduction

Political resistance continues to manifest in different forms and to varying degrees throughout the modern age. Despite its critics, civil disobedience has generally come to be considered a permissible mode of resistance. The philosophical debate that I seek to engage centers on the distinctly more controversial question of whether the use of violence for political purposes, objectively considered an extremity of disobedience, is ever morally justifiable within an unjust legal system.

Violence is prima facie a wrong and a source of evil. Employing violence as part of a political maneuver is demonstrably more prone to cause consequences for protestors as well as the broader society when compared to other modes of resistance, hence its wide condemnation amongst scholars and activists. Those who oppose the use of violence have offered much credible support for its absence in the course of disobedience. However, I challenge the attitude which supports the complete proscription of violence as neglecting the legitimate potential of a moral justification arising for it under extreme circumstances, albeit infrequently. To frame my response, this paper shall be divided into three sections.

It is necessary that first I examine what gives rise to law’s authority as our attitude towards the permissibility of disobedience will be dependent on the school of thought to which we attribute ourselves. By comparing the merits of Social Contract Theory, as it is referenced by Socrates in Plato’s Crito, with that of Raz’s Normal Justification Thesis, I shall be arguing that the latter thesis offers us the most satisfactory basis for obedience.

Secondly, I shall be defending the position that civil disobedience is justifiable, drawing on the works of Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rawls, and Greenwalt. I shall also be considering arguments surrounding the influence that the rule of law and democracy may have over this philosophy. Ultimately, their purported ability to render non-violent resistance unjustifiable will be rejected. This will provide the foundation for a critical analysis of the more heavily contended and central issue of violent protest.

The final section shall concentrate on my primary contention for this paper, that violence to oppose an unjust legal system can be justified when consistent with four principle conditions; (a) There is reasonable belief that violent resistance will be effective and non-violent resistance will be ineffective at changing the law, (b) There is reasonable belief that violence will result in a lesser evil, (c) The violent resistance is strictly directed at the ‘forces’ and (d) There is a willingness to accept punishment unless the subject is reacting to violent oppression. Failure to adhere to these conditions would create a context in which any moral justification said to arise for violence is negated.

I) The authority of law

An individual’s willingness to resist the law will depend on their philosophy of what gives the law authority. In the foundational work of Plato’s Crito, Socrates subscribes to the Social Contract Theory. The theory is premised on civil society and government emerging from a state of nature through a social contract in which people relinquish their natural rights to property and liberty over to the state, which becomes responsible for protecting and enforcing these rights. The exchange requires society to strictly obey the authority of the state where it is successful in protecting society’s natural rights, thus forming the basis for a legitimate government. Here, Socrates believed that wronging the state, although its laws may be unjust, is itself an injustice that should be mitigated by compliance. Furthermore, Socrates argued that a state could not function unless people respected the law, as the refusal of citizens to obey laws that they find unjust could result in societal chaos. Whilst this claim holds an element of validity, it lacks the flexibility to account for conditions which, if satisfied, may justify disobedience and the use of violence thereafter, as shall be argued throughout this essay.

In Plato’s earlier work Minos, we are presented with the argument that laws are binding as a collective; one has no right to accept some whilst rejecting others. It provides us with an insight into how Socrates may react to substantively unjust laws from a different angle to that taken in Crito. Socrates would demonstrate a healthy skepticism towards evil resolutions, at least considering them a different kind of law to good resolutions. Crito and Minos offer, to some extent, a contrast in Socrates’ attitude towards the obligation to obey the law. Crito suggests that the obligation to obey is absolute. Law should not be resisted where the state upholds its end of the social contract. On the other hand, we can interpret from Minos that there may be a threshold for law’s substantive unjustness which, if exceeded, rescinds the obligation to obey. Despite their differences, it can confidently be deduced that Plato generally submits a strong obligation to obey the law.

On the other hand, Raz in ‘The Authority of Law’ proposed his Normal Justification Thesis which offers both a clearer and sounder way of navigating our obligation to obey the law. This thesis expresses the notion that law claims authority and presents itself as a directive on how to act. Ultimately, its purpose is to facilitate the welfare of both society and all individuals within it. Insofar as the law is successful in its purpose, we must obey. Raz’s theory resembles much of Finnis’ Natural Law Theory in ‘Natural Law and Natural Rights’. For Finnis, the purpose of the law is to solve coordination problems for society and so legal authority acts as an agent which employs its expertise and logic to create law as a directive that engages our practical reasoning. The obligation upon the law’s subjects to obey therefore depends on the capacity of the law to further the ‘common good’.

Finnis believes there is a presumptive moral obligation to obey the law which may be offset where ‘lawmakers exploit their opportunity’ by making laws that contravene any of the four principal types of injustice which he identifies. This includes laws made for some ‘improper purpose’, laws that ‘go beyond [lawmakers] jurisdiction’, the legal authority that is exercised ‘contrary to requirements of matter and form’, and a stipulation that is ‘substantively unjust’. On the other hand, Raz makes the most convincing assertion that there is an occasional presumptive obligation to obey which can arise incrementally in different ways, such as by promoting justice or preventing harm.

The attraction of Raz’s thesis is that our obligation to obey works in a bottom-up structure that encourages us to follow our conscience and rationalize laws before obeying. Overall, Raz and Finnis can be understood to commonly reject Social Contract Theories, finding law’s authority based on an approach that appreciates law as an exercise of practical reasoning from authority, communicated to individuals of the state which then stimulates their practical reasoning to collectively advance the common good. We should rely on the rational faculties of individuals in tandem with legal structures as opposed to subscribing purely to a higher authority, based on a social contract, which has faltered in the past and may continue to do so in the future. Based on Raz’s credible theory, there is latitude for disobedience in an unjust legal system. Thoreau, Martin Luther King, Rawls, and Greenwalt offer a variety of arguments for why civil disobedience is justified and should be exercised.

II) Civil disobedience

Although conscientious objection is indeed a form of resistance, it is best understood as a private action for personal exemption against individual laws which may be immoral or impious as opposed to a strategy for political change. As such, the focus of this section shall primarily concern civil disobedience in the exploration of non-violent methods of disobedience. For this essay, civil disobedience shall be defined as non-violent resistance against the commands of an authority in power.

The term ‘Civil Disobedience’ derives from Henry David Thoreau’s first essay published in 1849. The historical importance of Thoreau’s essay is illuminated when contrasted with the work of legal theorists through the 16th-18th centuries such as Hobbes and Kant who, having devoted writing to the Social Contract Theory discussed above, ultimately hold the view that there is an absolute or near absolute obligation to obey law respectively. Thoreau contributed to the recent diversion from this legal theory, highlighting the importance of civil disobedience in response to unjust laws.

In his work, Thoreau propounds the idea that the ‘Individual conscience should not be subservient to the government, but should be independent and even prioritized’. Essentially, Thoreau recognizes the principal purpose of government, endorsing the motto ‘That government is best which governs not at all’ as ‘Government is at best but an expedient’ for society, thus demonstrating compatibility with Raz’s Normal Justification Thesis. Thoreau also provides compelling reasons for not engaging in or supporting injustice by responding to it with action. To an extent, Thoreau considers passive subscription a way of facilitating injustice. He argues that activities such as paying taxes that contribute towards an unjust cause are an ‘implicit way of creating injustice by otherwise well-meaning people’. Rather, ‘Men should revolt against the ‘machine’ of oppression’.

King’s ‘Letter from a Birmingham Jail’ expresses a similar notion but from a different perspective. He writes ‘Any law that degrades human personality is unjust’, and goes beyond mere justification by asserting ‘one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws’. Agreeing with St. Augustine, he believed they should not be considered laws at all. As an egalitarian, King rightly pronounced that the denial of the right to march was ordered discriminatorily and based on race, meaning it contravened principles of equality. As such, King wrote ‘I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust: is, in reality, expressing the highest respect for the law’. For King, civil disobedience is not considered mere lawlessness but instead regarded as a key method for addressing the incorrectness of unjust laws.

Thoreau concurs with King that a moral obligation arises to not practically support unjust law, but to engage in an active form of resistance; ‘A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority’. Thoreau expresses dissatisfaction with the belief that democratic processes are sufficient to rectify injustice. A valid reason offered for this is that often, the injustice of the law is a result of the ‘Proper processes themselves being unjust or inadequate in fixing the justice’, as was the case in South Africa at the time of Apartheid. However, we can comprehend an unjust legal system that exists within a democratic structure. One may argue that law is rendered just on the basis that it derives from a democratic state that possesses adequate channels for legal change. In opposition to this, Rawls explains the unhindered importance of civil disobedience in a constitutional democracy.

Essentially for Rawls, the objective of civil disobedience is to appeal to the community’s sense of justice. He writes that it is employed as a means to serve the majority ‘fair notice’ that in the ‘sincere and considered opinion’ of the disobedient, ‘the conditions of free cooperation are being violated.’ Whilst Rawls understands that a democratic society is good and promotes equality, he recognizes that the pace at which structures of democratic governance effectuate change may be relatively slow and so civil disobedience can be a necessary measure for accelerating needed change. Although Rawls’s broader theory for the justification of civil disobedience possesses many flaws, a few of which shall be addressed in the next paragraph, the extracted argument here is a sensible one and echoes the important message delivered by King, ‘Justice too long delayed is justice denied’.

Greenwalt in ‘Justifying Nonviolent Disobedience’ takes a more forceful stance and endorses civil disobedience beyond the scope that Rawls outlines. His criticism of Rawls explores three issues. Firstly his restriction on the permissibility of civil disobedience to only clear injustices of a substantial magnitude against basic rights, secondly the exclusion of circumstances in which civil disobedience is utilized to cause an inconvenience that becomes intolerable to the majority, and finally Rawls’ exclusion of appeals directed at a minority. Significantly, Greenwalt believes that by applying the pressure of inconvenience, civil disobedience may ‘achieve a concession that the majority would not accord out of its sense of justice.’ Greenwalt raises a significant point here. It is entirely possible that unless there is a level of disturbance to social operations, those who engage in civil disobedience may be neglected. The recent protests of Extinction Rebellion are a prime example of this, having received greater media coverage and support amongst people following public demonstrations such as road blockades.

Civil disobedience could appear to conflict with the rule of law. This influences Rawls’ limitations as he asserts that disobedience that threatens the rule of law should not be embarked upon. However, it is a misconception of the principle to believe that the rule of law would simply collapse unless every stipulation is obeyed. The predominant function of the rule of law is to limit the authority of government and to hold it accountable. Indeed, we should appreciate that through civil disobedience, people of the state are fulfilling this function by acting as a further check and balance for lawmakers. Accordingly, civil disobedience should be regarded as bolstering the rule of law.

In summary, civil disobedience is a powerful political instrument possessing an array of justifications for its use in the effort to effectuate positive change in an unjust legal system. Engaging in civil disobedience requires nobility and ardent rejection of the laws imposed on society, reflecting the conscientiousness of the disobedient which is honorable in itself. It facilitates progress that cannot be guaranteed through democratic processes and works as a useful tool to highlight injustice to both the subjects and authority within a state. Indeed, when an unjust law affects our conscience, a moral obligation arises to disobey in pursuit of furthering the common good for society and promoting equality. I shall now distinguish violence from civil disobedience and argue that it may be justified in extreme circumstances.

III) Violence

Semantically, the term ‘violence’ carries negative emotive force. It holds connotations of aggression and immorality, creating somewhat of a prima facie paradox when considering violence under the theme of moral justification. However, violence is more dimensional than this and can be a useful tool for counteracting and suppressing greater evils in a particularly unjust legal system. For this paper, violence shall be normatively defined as ‘Behaviour involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, threaten or kill someone or something’.

Gandhi was a thoroughly committed pacifist and repudiated arguments for violence. Indeed, we can appreciate the success of his movements as they lead to the self-determination of India and the retreat of British colonial authority. Gandhi embraced ‘Satyagraha’, a philosophy that aimed to communicate with the oppressor through voluntary suffering with the objective of ‘[Melting] the heart of his opponent’ and ‘[Opening] the eyes of his understanding’. The religious undertone to Gandhi’s political struggle could be conceived as something more akin to a pilgrimage than resistance. Essentially, he held the belief that through active and proactive resistance, those who were at the peril of an unjust regime could tempt oppressors through a rational argument that would evoke sympathy or at least a reasoning process that would lead to justice prevailing. It is evident that when confronted with force as aggressive as the Nazi regime, Gandhi would continue to pursue the pacifistic approach as he believed that there is something beyond the tangible that guarantees justice. This notion can be seen to have influenced King in his statement ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends towards justice.’ Whilst I embrace Gandhi for mitigating the use of violence, his doctrine cannot be universalized. The argument that any tyrannical authority can be compelled to engage in a dialogue that leads to the reversal of an unjust legal system cannot be applied in every instance. Further, it presupposes powerful governments enforcing unjust laws possess a moral compass that can be reconfigured, or indeed a high degree of rationality; the paradigm example being Hitler and his party.

Nelson Mandela’s campaign acknowledged the limits of nonviolent resistance. Despite agreeing with Gandhi’s tactics and aspiring to avoid violence, he deemed it apparent that nonviolent methods of disobedience would be futile. Mandela stated that he did not commit sabotage due to a ‘love for violence’. Instead, he ‘planned it as a result of calm and sober assessment of the political situation’ which exploited his people for many years. Apartheid enforced censorship of political opposition, leaving Mandela in a position where he either accepted a permanent state of inferiority or [defied] the Government’. Defiance did not begin with violent recourse but later amounted to it after further legislation and the South African government’s exertion of force. This sequence of events alludes to the commonly accepted principle of self-defense, which provides strong ground for the justification of violence as it does in criminal law. Although Mandela diverged from the nonviolent ideals of Gandhi and King, he too was motivated by the aim of reconciliation which he pursued in his life and time in prison. It is possible that Mandela’s resistance would fall outside of my formula, particularly condition (b), with controversies surrounding the severity and extent of violence used in retaliation. Striving for reconciliation in the course of violent disobedience is therefore a positive quality that would contribute towards fulfilling the conditions for a moral justification to arise. I shall now deal with each condition individually and provide reasoning for why collectively, they justify violent disobedience.

Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

American transcendentalist and philosopher, Henry David Thoreau, wrote the essay “Civil Disobedience” in response to slavery and Americans’ involvement in the Mexican-American War. Thoreau practiced what he preached, spending the night in jail for non-payment of taxes in protest of the Mexican-American War. Throughout his essay, he shares his idea, which is “That government is best which governs least;” (Thoreau, 1) by using rhetorical language along with his own experiences to persuade others to come around to his way of thinking. Thoreau was not trying to target a specific audience but to make a populist appeal in favor of less government. Thoreau drew upon his own experience to make his story relatable to his audience. Thoreau’s use of diction, tone, appeals, and figurative language was to make it appeal to his readers by making them entertaining and sincere.

Thoreau took his case to the public by reciting it in public in Concord. Hoping to rally people to his side, he used personal experience and the use of rhetorical questions. Giving the audience the chance to decide for itself whether or not it agreed with him. In his tone, he shows anger and indignation at the government for the hysteria that surrounded the Mexican-American war and does not feel a citizen should have to pay a tax to support something they find morally troubling. His diction created a sense of urgency and treated this as a problem with the government that needed to be solved immediately. With this diction along with an angry, passionate, and independent tone, he could persuade his audience for others to turn to his way of thinking. In Thoreau’s essay, he uses a momentous and confident tone with his statements such as, “For the government is an expedient, by which man would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it”. (Thoreau 1) This presents Thoreau’s contempt for government and the moral question of whether one should be forced to be taxed for something one finds morally repugnant. His diction and tone are one of indignation and he speaks from personal experience and is relatable to his audience. Being imprisoned gave him a unique perspective on government and its workings. Hoping to capture his audience, he vies to make it immediate and timely. In this manner, Thoreau’s diction and tone are to appeal to his audience’s sense of right and wrong.

Thoreau’s use of appeals in his essay was also a major part of persuading, garnering sympathy, and providing a logical argument for his cause. Pathos is used to evoke strong emotional responses from either the listener or the reader. Thoreau makes a powerful appeal to both patriotism and widely held religious beliefs of the time. By evoking both the Bible and the Constitution, “They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility…” (Thoreau 14), he appeals to his audience’s prevailing belief systems. Along with a powerful use of pathos, Thoreau also utilizes ethos to appear credible to his readers. Thoreau himself had refused to pay the poll tax for six years due to his stance on slavery. He also was involved in many abolitionist groups and helped slaves escape their servitude. “Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil. But it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse than the evil.” (Thoreau 6), this quote illustrates Thoreau’s strong moral stance on issues. His argument about being government should not force people to give up their moral beliefs. He also uses logos to declare his argument and how the government should represent the wants and needs of its people. Appealing to his audience’s common sense gives his writing a more populist appeal.

Thoreau’s use of figurative language was another way to gain his reader’s attention. By utilizing different forms of figurative language, he can put that to use to get his point across about the relationship the government has with its people. His use of metaphor such as comparing the government to a machine. The machine can also be seen as a metaphor for a soul-crushing bureaucracy. Thoreau also uses simile when he describes jail as, “like traveling to a far country”. In this way, he evokes his readers’ imaginations and is much more literary than the standard political rant. Thoreau’s use of paradox is evident in his assertion that one must be willing to accept the consequences of standing up to unjust laws by breaking them. Along with his use of other figurative language, he adds personification by comparing the government to an actual human being. By doing this, he is allowing his readers another way to think about the government as a very personal thing rather than some faceless entity. Thoreau operates figurative language into his essay to present a more literary and richer experience for the reader.

Thoreau was a man of grand passion who advocated for a simple life and the freedom to be left alone. “Civil Disobedience” is still referenced today and was cited by Gandhi as a significant influence on him. His use of the rhetorical triangle and figurative language makes his work accessible to anyone. Thoreau used rhetorical devices to give the readers a unique perspective and get them thinking about the cause he is so emotional about. Thoreau was a common man, writing for the common man, and he used a full palette of literary devices at his disposal. The passion of his conviction comes through in the prose. Thoreau’s passion and emotion are infused in all of his writing and whatever flaws he may have as a writer, it is more than made up for by his enthusiasm and the unwavering conviction to his cause.