argumentative essay on civil disobedience

Home — Essay Samples — Social Issues — Social Movements — Civil Disobedience

Essays on Civil Disobedience

Hook examples for civil disobedience essays, the echoes of thoreau hook.

Begin your essay by revisiting the influential writings of Henry David Thoreau. Explore his essay "Civil Disobedience" and its enduring impact on movements for social and political change.

The Power of Nonviolent Resistance Hook

Examine the concept of nonviolent resistance as a form of civil disobedience. Discuss iconic figures like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who used peaceful protest to effect transformative change.

From Suffragettes to Sit-Ins Hook

Trace the history of civil disobedience movements. Highlight pivotal moments, such as the suffragette movement or lunch counter sit-ins during the civil rights era, to illustrate the diversity of causes and methods.

The Moral Obligation Hook

Explore the ethical and moral underpinnings of civil disobedience. Discuss the idea that individuals engage in acts of protest not only to challenge unjust laws but also as a moral duty to uphold justice.

Environmental Activism and Civil Disobedience Hook

Connect civil disobedience to contemporary environmental movements. Analyze the actions of activists who engage in acts of protest to raise awareness about climate change and environmental conservation.

The Digital Age of Civil Disobedience Hook

Discuss the role of technology and social media in modern civil disobedience. Explore how digital platforms have empowered activists to mobilize, organize, and advocate for change on a global scale.

The Legal and Ethical Boundaries Hook

Examine the fine line between civil disobedience and lawbreaking. Discuss the ethical considerations of breaking the law for a just cause and the consequences faced by individuals who engage in acts of protest.

Lessons from International Movements Hook

Look beyond national borders and explore civil disobedience in international contexts. Investigate movements like the Arab Spring or Hong Kong's pro-democracy protests to gain insights into global struggles for change.

Artistic Expression and Civil Disobedience Hook

Highlight the intersection of art and civil disobedience. Discuss how artists have used their creative talents to convey powerful messages and challenge societal norms, sparking conversations and change.

Civil Disobedience Thesis Statement: Tool for Social Change

Thoreau's civil disobedience: a philosophical exploration, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

Civil Disobedience in Sophocles' Antigone

Civil disobedience in the arguments of henry david thoreau, martin luther king, jr., and socrates, a critical analysis of "civil disobedience" by henry david thoreau, the significant role of civil disobedience in shaping society, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Civil Disobedience and Its Importance for Better Changes

Civil disobedience: why one should disobey the law, the controversial question of the use of civil disobedience as a method of protest in a democracy, henry david thoreau's views on the role of government in civil disobedience, get a personalized essay in under 3 hours.

Expert-written essays crafted with your exact needs in mind

Review of Henry David Thoreau’s Writing, Civil Disobedience

Disobedience and its influence on society, "civil disobedience": first step to individualism, a comparison of "civil disobedience" and "letter from birmingham jail", the underlying meaning of civil disobedience, a reflection on henry thoreau’s views on civil disobedience, the importance of defending your standards as depicted by thoreau in civil disobedience, the negritude movement in france, oscar wilde's views on disobedience as a valuable human trait, how disobedience is the foundation of liberty, assessment of the protest march by gandhi and the indian independence movement, questioning democracy in thoreau's and melville's works, examining diverse views on slavery in america, stoicism and civil disobedience interconnection, religion, utopia, and the concept of perfection in allegory of the cave by plato and a civil disobedience by henry david thoreau, resistance to civil government, does disobedience promote social progress.

Civil disobedience is a form of nonviolent resistance characterized by the deliberate and conscientious violation of laws, rules, or policies enacted by a governing authority, with the aim of challenging perceived injustices or promoting social change. Rooted in the belief that certain laws or actions are morally or ethically unacceptable, civil disobedience involves individuals or groups engaging in peaceful acts of protest or defiance to bring attention to and challenge oppressive systems, discriminatory practices, or unjust policies.

Civil disobedience, as a concept and practice, has its origins in various historical contexts and philosophical traditions. It traces its roots back to ancient times, with examples of individuals and groups engaging in acts of resistance against unjust laws or oppressive regimes. However, the modern concept of civil disobedience emerged prominently in the 19th and 20th centuries. One significant influence on the development of civil disobedience was the philosophy of Henry David Thoreau, an American writer and transcendentalist. In his essay "Civil Disobedience" (1849), Thoreau advocated for the idea that individuals have a moral duty to resist unjust laws and government actions. His writings inspired many subsequent activists and thinkers, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who employed civil disobedience as a means of achieving social and political change. Throughout history, civil disobedience has been utilized by various movements and individuals advocating for different causes, such as the suffragettes fighting for women's rights, the civil rights movement in the United States, and protests against oppressive regimes worldwide. Civil disobedience has often been employed as a nonviolent strategy to challenge unjust policies, raise awareness, and prompt dialogue and reform.

1. Mahatma Gandhi: Gandhi, a leader in India's struggle for independence from British rule, popularized the concept of nonviolent resistance. His approach to civil disobedience, known as Satyagraha, emphasized peaceful resistance, civil disobedience, and self-sacrifice. 2. Martin Luther King Jr.: A prominent leader in the American civil rights movement, King advocated for racial equality and justice. He utilized civil disobedience tactics, such as peaceful protests and boycotts, to challenge racial segregation and discrimination in the United States. 3. Rosa Parks: Parks is widely known for her pivotal role in the civil rights movement. By refusing to give up her bus seat to a white passenger in Montgomery, Alabama, she sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, a significant event in the fight against racial segregation. 4. Nelson Mandela: Mandela, an anti-apartheid activist and former president of South Africa, fought against racial oppression through civil disobedience. He spent 27 years in prison for his activism before becoming a symbol of resistance and reconciliation.

1. Nonviolent Protests: Nonviolent protests involve gathering in public spaces to express dissent peacefully. This can include sit-ins, marches, rallies, or public demonstrations that aim to raise awareness, disrupt systems, and challenge the status quo. 2. Civil Disobedience Campaigns: Civil disobedience campaigns involve planned actions where participants deliberately and openly violate specific laws or regulations to highlight their unjust nature. This could include acts such as public acts of defiance, refusal to pay taxes, or intentional acts of civil disobedience. 3. Boycotts: Boycotts involve the organized refusal to engage with or purchase goods or services from institutions or businesses that support or perpetuate unjust practices. Economic pressure is used as a means to bring attention to the cause and prompt change. 4. Civil Resistance: Civil resistance encompasses a range of nonviolent actions aimed at disrupting or obstructing unjust systems. This can include acts of noncooperation, such as strikes, walkouts, or work slowdowns, to challenge oppressive policies or practices. 5. Symbolic Actions: Symbolic actions are often employed in civil disobedience to convey a message or draw attention to an issue. This can include public gestures, artistic expressions, or symbolic acts that resonate with the cause and create a visual impact.

1. Nonviolent Resistance: Civil disobedience is rooted in the principle of nonviolence. It rejects the use of physical force and instead relies on peaceful means to challenge unjust laws or policies. By refusing to resort to violence, civil disobedience aims to demonstrate moral integrity and inspire change through empathy and compassion. 2. Conscious Lawbreaking: Civil disobedience involves a deliberate and conscious violation of specific laws or regulations that are deemed unjust or oppressive. Participants willingly accept the legal consequences of their actions, viewing their acts of defiance as a way to expose and challenge unjust systems. 3. Moral and Ethical Grounding: Civil disobedience is driven by a strong moral and ethical conviction. Participants believe that their actions are morally justified and that they have a responsibility to stand up against injustice. It often emerges from a deep commitment to core principles such as equality, human rights, and social justice. 4. Public and Symbolic Nature: Civil disobedience typically takes place in public spaces to maximize visibility and impact. By engaging in acts of protest openly, participants seek to raise awareness, spark dialogue, and encourage others to question the legitimacy of unjust laws or policies. Symbolic gestures and actions are often employed to convey a powerful message and evoke empathy or solidarity. 5. Pursuit of Change and Reconciliation: Civil disobedience is not merely an act of rebellion; it is a call for change and reconciliation. It aims to prompt dialogue, create pressure for reform, and ultimately lead to a more just and equitable society. By highlighting the flaws in existing systems, civil disobedience seeks to initiate constructive discussions and foster positive transformation.

1. Literature: One notable literary representation of civil disobedience is Henry David Thoreau's essay "Civil Disobedience." Thoreau's work inspired future activists, including Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., and has become a foundational text in understanding the philosophy and practice of civil disobedience. 2. Film: The movie "Selma" (2014) directed by Ava DuVernay portrays the civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama, led by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. The film depicts the nonviolent civil disobedience strategies employed by activists to combat racial discrimination and secure voting rights. 3. Music: The song "We Shall Overcome" has become an anthem for civil rights movements around the world. It originated as a gospel hymn and was later adapted as a protest song during the civil rights movement in the United States. Its powerful lyrics and melody capture the spirit of solidarity and resilience in the face of oppression.

1. One significant example of civil disobedience is Rosa Parks' refusal to give up her seat to a white passenger on a segregated bus in Montgomery, Alabama, in 1955. This act of defiance sparked the Montgomery Bus Boycott, which lasted for over a year and played a pivotal role in the civil rights movement. 2. Mahatma Gandhi's Salt March in 1930 is another notable act of civil disobedience. In protest against British colonial salt laws, Gandhi and his followers marched over 240 miles to the Arabian Sea to make their own salt. This event garnered international attention and highlighted the power of nonviolent resistance in the fight for Indian independence. 3. In recent years, the climate change movement has witnessed acts of civil disobedience on a global scale. One prominent example is the formation of Extinction Rebellion, a socio-political movement that employs nonviolent civil disobedience to demand urgent action on climate change. Their protests and disruptive actions have gained attention worldwide, raising awareness about the need for immediate and transformative environmental policies.

Civil disobedience is an important and captivating topic to explore in an essay due to its profound impact on society, history, and the pursuit of justice. It provides a lens through which to examine the power of individuals and communities in challenging unjust laws and oppressive systems. By examining the history and philosophy of civil disobedience, an essay can shed light on the transformative role it has played in various movements, from the civil rights movement to environmental activism. It invites reflection on the ethical and moral dimensions of dissent and resistance in the face of injustice. Furthermore, exploring civil disobedience allows for an examination of the tension between law and morality, and the role of dissent in shaping a more equitable society. It prompts critical analysis of the relationship between citizens and their governments, highlighting the importance of civil liberties and the exercise of individual agency.

1. Arendt, H. (1972). Crises of the Republic. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. 2. Brownlee, K. (2012). Civil disobedience. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/civil-disobedience/ 3. Gandhi, M. K. (1907). Hind Swaraj or Indian Home Rule. Navajivan Publishing House. 4. King, M. L. (1963). Letter from Birmingham Jail. In J. M. Washington (Ed.), A testament of hope: The essential writings and speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. (pp. 289-302). HarperOne. 5. Martin, B. (2007). Defining civil disobedience. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 35(1), 3-26. 6. Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice. Harvard University Press. 7. Rawls, J. (1999). The justification of civil disobedience. In Collected papers (pp. 525-546). Harvard University Press. 8. Raz, J. (1979). The rule of law and its virtue. In The authority of law: Essays on law and morality (pp. 210-241). Oxford University Press. 9. Simmons, J. (2009). Civil disobedience and the duty to obey the law. Cambridge University Press. 10. Thoreau, H. D. (1849). Civil Disobedience. In Resistance to Civil Government. Cosimo Classics.

Relevant topics

• Gun Control
• Pro Life (Abortion)
• Animal Testing
• Gun Violence
• Women's Rights
• Freedom of Speech
• Death Penalty
• Discrimination
• Racial Profiling
• I Have a Dream

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples

Crafting a civil disobedience thesis or writing about historical figures and social movements? Get some original topics and read some samples on government resistance gathered by our team .

📝 Tips on Writing Stellar Civil Disobedience Essay Examples

🏆 best civil disobedience essay examples & topics, 📌 good civil disobedience topics for research, 👍 interesting civil disobedience essay topics, ❓ civil disobedience questions.

Civil disobedience has been a controversial topic since 1849 when the term first appeared in Thoreau’s essay.

Writing an essay on civil disobedience may be a challenging task because there are still many questions and unresolved issues around this concept. However, there are some useful tips that can help you to write excellent civil disobedience essays.

Here are some civil disobedience essay titles and topics we can suggest:

• Civil disobedience as a way to combat injustice
• Civil disobedience in the arguments of Martin Luther King
• Resistance movement and civil disobedience
• The question of nonviolence in civil disobedience
• How civil disobedience can shape society
• Civil disobedience as a form of passive resistance
• The meaning and significance of civil disobedience
• Gandhi and civil disobedience: A discussion

Once you have selected one of civil disobedience essay topics and titles, you can start working on your paper. Here are some key points you can use to write an excellent paper:

• Start with defining civil disobedience before writing your paper. Think of what this term means to you and research available sources to learn more about it.
• Study the topic you have selected thoroughly, even if you think that you know a lot about it. It is always a good idea to check out the latest news articles on civil disobedience along with scholarly sources. Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.
• Do not hesitate to check out essay examples online. Civil disobedience essay examples can help you to evaluate the relevance of the issue you have selected for discussion and see how you can structure your paper. Avoid copying the works you will find online.
• Now you can start to develop an outline for your paper. Think of the main points you want to include and organize them within the essay. Do not forget to present a thesis statement at the end of the introductory paragraph. The number of body paragraphs will depend on the size of the paper. We would recommend including at least three body paragraphs.
• Clearly define the objectives of your essay or the message you want to convey in the paper.
• Do not forget to define civil disobedience and explain the meaning of this term. Providing examples is a good idea, too. You can also reflect on why individuals decide to disobey and what causes such behavior.
• Discuss the consequences and legal aspects associated with civil disobedience. The goal of your paper should be to help the reader understand the topic better and develop an opinion on it. Outline your perspective clearly.
• Remember to support your claims with evidence. Cite articles using appropriate citation style (MLA, APA, Harvard, or other). Ask your professor about the sources you can use for the essay.
• Remember to provide a civil disobedience essay summary or a simple concluding paragraph at the end of your paper. In this paragraph, you should state the main ideas and findings of your essay and research. You should not include in-text citations in this section.
• Include recommendations in a separate body paragraph or as a part of the concluding section, if applicable. Make sure that the recommendations are relevant to the topic you have selected and can potentially solve the issue.

Remember that you can check out some samples on our website. They are free and have the best ideas for your essay.

• Civil Disobedience: Advantages and Disadvantages Even without being told, people have to be obedient to the rules, laws and guidelines that have been set out by social institutions to ensure that there is peace and harmony in the society.
• Political Obligation and Civil Disobedience The disparity between the issues of legal political obligation and moral obligation makes it hard for liberal political theorists to analyze the natural duty and the moral basis of any person’s submission to his or […]
• Civil Disobedience and Pride in “Antigone” by Sophocles The play effectively depicts the theme of civil disobedience through the personality of Antigone, who is willing to break the rules to satisfy her morals standards and conscience. Therefore, the author uses the characters of […]
• Thoreau, Socrates, and Civil Disobedience The striking difference in these two essays is that Thoreau is more rebellious when it comes to the government and he feels that the government is wrong and it must be subjected to criticism to […]
• Self-Reliance Versus Civil Disobedience Thoreau says that he is a monarch of the survey, and it is his right to explore nature that no one can dispute.
• Environmentalism and Civil Disobedience What the current society is enjoying today is considered to be because of the good care of the environment by the previous generations and the future generations are hence expected to either enjoy or suffer […]
• Gandhi, ‘Satyagraha’ and Thoreau’s ‘Civil Disobedience’ Gandhi proposed some principles for the members of the Satyagraha and insisted that these principles must be followed to achieve the desired effect.
• Mahatma Gandhi’s Salt Walk and Civil Disobedience The act signified the end of salt laws and allowed Indians to harvest saltwater and produce salt locally. Mahatma protested unfair salt laws imposed by staging a peaceful walk from his hometown in Ahmedabad to […]
• “Sit-Ins” in the US: The Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience is an opportunity to change the situation for better, at least in a challenging way. Moreover, to date, “Sit-Ins” are unlikely to bring many benefits, and people solve the problem of inequality in […]
• The Essay “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau He claims that the government’s power is based more on the influence that the majority possesses rather than on the desire to act legitimately and fairly, which makes it overall unreliable as a source of […]
• Why Civil Disobedience Is Morally Justified Thus, civil disobedience becomes a morally justified act since it seeks to openly and non-violently address wrong and problematic phenomena in society.
• Good Samaritan vs Civil Disobedience in Law Bill of Rights asserts that the authority of a government is derived from the consent of the governed, and whenever any form of government becomes destructive, it is the right and duty of the people […]
• “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau He is worried about so many problems that exist in the system of law and the justice of the state. At the beginning of his argument, Thoreau states that some laws in the country are […]
• King ‘s “Letter From Birmingham Jail” and Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” Despite this fact, both King and Thoreau had a common goal to expose the unjust laws that govern a society of civil resistance to unjust laws It should be stressed that both King and Thoreau […]
• Emerson’s The American Scholar, Thoreau’s Walden and Civil Disobedience, Douglass’ Narrative of the Life‎ The importance of literature in our lives is impossible to exaggerate, partly because it represents the accumulated knowledge of the best minds of mankind through the whole course of human history, partly because it is […]
• Civil Disobedience: Gandhi Non-Violent Campaigns It can be said that passive resistance or civil disobedience is the most harmonious way to fight for one right and achieve the goals.
• Henry David Thoreau: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience It also goes against some of society and the state’s outlook and is opposed to statism and collectivism which is that of conforming to the community and national goals.
• Civil Disobedience, Protests, and Heroism Gandhi travelled to London to learn the law in the University of London in the year 1888. He says that he had wished for the white moderates to recognize that the existence of law and […]
• Unjust Laws and Civil Disobedience I consider accepting the unjust penalties enacted by the state a part of the activity that promotes the awareness of the injustice of certain laws and regard it as the demonstration of the person’s respect […]
• Civil Disobedience in Contemporary Society He lived in a society that valued the whites and ignored the black American citizens. When Socrates knew that he was going to die, he was not afraid of the afterlife.
• Violence and Bloodshed in “Civil Disobedience” by Henry Thoreau Overall, it is possible to argue that violence cannot be regarded as a legitimate way of civil disobedience because it implies that an individual rejects the idea of law and dialogue between a person and […]
• Rights to Civil Disobedience If the rights to civil disobedience are to be guaranteed, the values that accompany it would be prescribed in the legal code of ethics.
• Thoreau and his idea of civil disobedience The struggle for civil governance has been the most challenging aspect in several governments across the globe with the urge for better governance becoming a hotly contested subject internationally. However, the overriding reason is; should […]
• Civil Disobedience And Nonviolence It is the gist of this very long quote that answers the question and leaves the necessary action to be taken by the oppressed.
• Concept of Civil Disobedience In most cases, this kind of disobedience comes through organizing people to act in a nonviolent manner to force the government to heed to their demands.
• Nonviolent Action Protests: Civil Disobedience Thus, ordinary protest is for the intetrst of the organizer and has no respect to the implications of the actions on the wider society.
• An Analysis of Kirkpatrick Jennet’s Uncivil Disobedience: Studies in Violence and Democratic Politics In the case of John Brown and other militant abolitionists, the real picture is that they had failed to allow the responsible institutions to handle the matter of abolition within the limits of law and […]
• Describing Civil Disobedience Through the Acts of Martin Luther King
• A Description of Civil Disobedience as the Refusal To Obey Civil Laws
• Civil Disobedience: Are We Morally Obliged to Obey Unjust Laws?
• Civil Disobedience, Postmodernism and Globalization
• The Demonstration of Civil Disobedience in the Dialogue Between Socrates and Crito
• The Civil Rights Movement: Civil Disobedience Vs. Violence
• The Methods of Protecting Civil Rights in The Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass: An American Slave and Henry David
• Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
• The Rhetorical Analysis Of Henry Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience
• To What Extent is Civil Disobedience Justified in a Democracy
• A Literary Analysis of Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
• A Comparison of Theories of Civil Disobedience of Gandhi and Fanon
• The Civil Disobedience in Resistance to Civil War by David Thoreau
• The Factors to Consider When Justifying Civil Disobedience
• Should Civil Disobedience Be Permitted In A Democracy
• Civil Disobedience : Effective And Non Violent Government
• The Use of Civil Disobedience to Protest Against the Destruction of Endangered Trees
• Civil Disobedience as a Basic Human Right in Antigone, a Play by Sophocles
• The Justification of the Civil Disobedience During the Vietnam War
• Should Civil Disobedience Be Violent or Non-Violent
• The Ineffectiveness of Civil Disobedience in a Non-Democratic Government
• Nelson Mandela: The Art of Civil Disobedience
• The Ideologies of Henry David Thoreau in the Essay Civil Disobedience
• The Underlying Meaning of Civil Disobedience
• Modern Technology Critiques by Henry David Thoreau in Civil Disobedience
• Transcendentalism in Civil Disobedience
• The Reasons Why Civil Disobedience and Uncivil Disobedience Are Effective Ways to Solve Problems
• The Influence of Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience on Martin Luther King Junior
• An Analysis of the Topic of Civil Disobedience and Racism in the United States of America
• An Overview of the Civil Disobedience and Passive Resistance of Mohandas Gandhi
• An Argumentation Against Civil Disobedience
• A Look at the Justification of David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience Act Against Paying Taxes
• Thoreau on How to Use Civil Disobedience to Advance Justice
• Promoting The Use Of Civil Disobedience
• The Significance And History Of Civil Disobedience
• Democracy in Civil Disobedience, Slavery in Massachusetts, Benito Cereno and Bartleby the Scrivener
• Civil Disobedience: Freedom Fighters or Criminals?
• The Advantages and Disadvantages of Civil Disobedience and Uncivil Disobedience
• A Christian Philosophy on Civil Disobedience
• Ecoterrorism and Eco Sabotage vs. Civil Disobedience
• The Role and Contribution of Slavery on the Civil Disobedience in the U.S
• What Are the Two Main Claims of Civil Disobedience?
• Is Thoreau’s Conception of Civil Disobedience Compatible With Democratic Government?
• What Does Civil Disobedience Argue?
• Why Is Civil Disobedience Not Morally Justified?
• How Was Civil Disobedience Used in the Civil Rights Movement?
• What Is Thoreau’s Opinion on Wealth and Consumption? Why Does He Say That the Rich Are Less Likely to Practice Civil Disobedience?
• How Does Civil Disobedience Help a Social Movement?
• Was the 1989 Tiananmen Square Massacre a Failure of Civil Disobedience?
• How Does Civil Disobedience Work?
• What Is the Tone of Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience”?
• How Does Stoicism Support Civil Disobedience?
• What Were the Limitations of Civil Disobedience?
• Which Type of Action Is More Effective, Taking Small Steps in Improving Your Livelihood or Taking Part in Climate Marches?
• How Does Disobedience Promote Social Progress?
• What Can Political Theory Tell Us About the Relationship Between Democracy and Protest?
• Is Every Unjust Law an Appropriate Target for Civil Disobedience?
• What Question Is at the Heart of Civil Disobedience?
• Is Civil Disobedience Ever Justified?
• How Effective Is Civil Disobedience?
• Why Should We Obey the Law?
• Is Civil Disobedience a Moral Responsibility of a Citizen?
• How Does Civil Disobedience Affect Society?
• What Would Happen Without Civil Disobedience?
• When Should Civil Disobedience Be Used?
• Why Is There a Need for Civil Disobedience?
• Is Disobedience Necessary for a Well Functioning Society?
• Does Civil Disobedience Have to Be Peaceful?
• Is Civil Disobedience a Crime?
• Can Civil Disobedience Lead to Violence?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, September 26). 98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/

"98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 26 Sept. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples'. 26 September.

IvyPanda . 2023. "98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "98 Civil Disobedience Essay Topics & Examples." September 26, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/civil-disobedience-essay-examples/.

• Anarchy Titles
• Discrimination Essay Titles
• Drunk Driving Essay Ideas
• Gambling Essay Titles
• Illegal Immigration Topics
• Bullying Research Topics
• School Violence Ideas
• Victimology Research Ideas

Lit. Summaries

• Biographies

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience: A Critical Literary Analysis

• Henry David Thoreau

Henry David Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” is a classic work of American literature that has been studied and analyzed for its political and philosophical implications. This critical literary analysis will examine the themes, style, and historical context of the essay, exploring how Thoreau’s ideas about individual conscience, nonviolent resistance, and the role of government continue to resonate with readers today. Through close reading and interpretation, we will gain a deeper understanding of Thoreau’s message and its relevance to contemporary debates about social justice and political activism.

The Historical Context of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience

The mid-19th century was a time of great social and political upheaval in the United States. Slavery was a contentious issue, with abolitionists and pro-slavery advocates engaged in a bitter debate over the morality and legality of the institution. The Mexican-American War had just ended, and many Americans were questioning the government’s motives for engaging in the conflict. Additionally, the country was experiencing rapid industrialization and urbanization, leading to concerns about the impact of these changes on society and the environment. Against this backdrop, Henry David Thoreau wrote his essay “Civil Disobedience,” which would become a seminal text in the history of American political thought. Thoreau’s ideas about individual conscience, nonviolent resistance, and the duty to disobey unjust laws continue to resonate with readers today, making “Civil Disobedience” a timeless work of literature.

Thoreau’s Concept of Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience is a powerful and influential idea that has shaped the way we think about political protest and resistance. At its core, civil disobedience is a form of nonviolent resistance that involves breaking unjust laws or disobeying unjust orders in order to bring attention to a particular issue or cause. Thoreau believed that individuals had a moral obligation to resist unjust laws and that this resistance could be a powerful force for social change. In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau argues that individuals have a duty to follow their conscience and to act on their beliefs, even if this means breaking the law. He also emphasizes the importance of individual action and the need for individuals to take responsibility for their own actions. Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience has been influential in many social and political movements, including the civil rights movement, the anti-war movement, and the environmental movement. Today, it continues to inspire individuals and groups who seek to challenge unjust laws and promote social justice.

Thoreau’s Critique of Democracy

Thoreau’s critique of democracy is a central theme in his essay “Civil Disobedience.” He argues that democracy is not a perfect system and that it can be corrupted by the majority’s tyranny. Thoreau believes that the government should be based on individual conscience and not on the will of the majority. He argues that the government should be limited in its power and that individuals should be free to act according to their own conscience. Thoreau’s critique of democracy is a powerful reminder that the government should be accountable to the people and that individuals should be free to express their opinions without fear of retribution.

The Role of Individual Conscience in Civil Disobedience

The concept of individual conscience plays a crucial role in civil disobedience, as it is the driving force behind the decision to break unjust laws. Thoreau believed that individuals have a moral obligation to resist unjust laws, even if it means facing punishment. He argued that blindly following the law without questioning its morality is a form of slavery, and that individuals must use their conscience to determine what is right and wrong. Thoreau’s emphasis on individual conscience in civil disobedience has influenced many social justice movements, including the civil rights movement and the fight for LGBTQ+ rights. However, the role of individual conscience in civil disobedience is not without controversy, as some argue that it can lead to chaos and anarchy. Despite this, Thoreau’s ideas continue to inspire individuals to stand up for what they believe in and fight for a more just society.

Thoreau’s Influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr

Thoreau’s influence on Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. is undeniable. Both leaders were inspired by Thoreau’s ideas of civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance. Gandhi, in particular, was deeply influenced by Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience,” which he read while studying law in England. Gandhi later wrote that Thoreau’s ideas “greatly influenced” his own philosophy of nonviolent resistance. Similarly, Martin Luther King Jr. was also inspired by Thoreau’s ideas and often cited “Civil Disobedience” in his speeches and writings. Thoreau’s legacy continues to inspire activists and leaders around the world who seek to bring about social change through peaceful means.

The Relationship between Civil Disobedience and Anarchism

The relationship between civil disobedience and anarchism has been a topic of debate for many years. Some argue that civil disobedience is a form of anarchism, while others believe that civil disobedience is a means of achieving social change within a democratic society. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” has been interpreted in both ways. On one hand, Thoreau’s emphasis on individual conscience and the rejection of government authority aligns with anarchist principles. On the other hand, Thoreau’s call for nonviolent resistance and his belief in the power of the individual to effect change through peaceful means suggests a more democratic approach. Ultimately, the relationship between civil disobedience and anarchism is complex and multifaceted, and Thoreau’s essay continues to inspire debate and discussion on this topic.

Thoreau’s Views on Slavery and Abolitionism

Thoreau’s views on slavery and abolitionism were deeply rooted in his belief in individual freedom and the importance of standing up for one’s principles. He was a vocal opponent of slavery and believed that it was not only morally wrong, but also a violation of the principles of democracy and human rights. Thoreau’s commitment to abolitionism was evident in his writings, including his famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” in which he argued that individuals have a duty to resist unjust laws and policies, including those that support slavery. Thoreau’s views on slavery and abolitionism were influential in shaping the political and social landscape of his time, and continue to inspire activists and thinkers today.

Thoreau’s Critique of Materialism and Consumerism

Thoreau’s critique of materialism and consumerism is a central theme in his essay “Civil Disobedience.” He argues that the pursuit of material possessions and wealth is a distraction from the true purpose of life, which is to live deliberately and to pursue one’s own individual path. Thoreau believes that consumerism and materialism lead to a loss of individuality and a conformity to societal norms. He writes, “Most men lead lives of quiet desperation and go to the grave with the song still in them.” Thoreau’s critique of materialism and consumerism is a call to action for individuals to reject societal pressures and to live a life that is true to themselves.

Thoreau’s Transcendentalist Philosophy and its Impact on Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s Transcendentalist philosophy played a significant role in shaping his views on civil disobedience. As a Transcendentalist, Thoreau believed in the inherent goodness of individuals and the importance of self-reliance and non-conformity. He also believed in the power of nature and the need for individuals to connect with it in order to find spiritual fulfillment. These beliefs influenced his views on civil disobedience, as he saw it as a way for individuals to assert their own moral principles and resist unjust laws. Thoreau’s essay “Civil Disobedience” is a powerful example of his Transcendentalist philosophy in action, as he argues that individuals have a duty to disobey unjust laws and to follow their own conscience, even if it means facing punishment or imprisonment. Thoreau’s ideas on civil disobedience have had a lasting impact on political and social movements, inspiring individuals to stand up for their beliefs and to resist oppression and injustice.

The Literary Style and Structure of Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a masterpiece of American literature that has been widely studied and analyzed for its literary style and structure. The essay is written in a simple and straightforward language that is easy to understand, yet it is also rich in metaphors and allusions that add depth and complexity to the text. Thoreau’s use of rhetorical devices such as repetition, parallelism, and irony also contribute to the essay’s literary quality.

The structure of Civil Disobedience is also noteworthy. Thoreau begins with a personal anecdote about his experience in jail, which serves as a hook to draw the reader in. He then transitions into a philosophical discussion about the role of government and the duty of the individual to resist unjust laws. Thoreau’s argument is structured in a logical and persuasive manner, with each point building upon the previous one. The essay concludes with a call to action, urging readers to take a stand against injustice and to live according to their own conscience.

Overall, Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a masterful example of literary craftsmanship. Its simple yet powerful language, effective use of rhetorical devices, and well-structured argument make it a timeless piece of American literature that continues to inspire readers today.

Thoreau’s Use of Metaphors and Symbolism in Civil Disobedience

In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau employs various metaphors and symbols to convey his message of nonviolent resistance against unjust laws. One of the most prominent metaphors he uses is that of the government as a machine. Thoreau argues that the government has become so mechanized that it no longer serves the people but rather oppresses them. He writes, “The government itself, which is only the mode which the people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can act through it.” This metaphor highlights the idea that the government is not a living entity but rather a tool that can be manipulated by those in power.

Another metaphor Thoreau employs is that of the individual as a machine. He argues that individuals have become so accustomed to following the rules and regulations set by the government that they have lost their ability to think for themselves. Thoreau writes, “The mass of men serve the state thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies.” This metaphor emphasizes the idea that individuals have become dehumanized and are no longer able to exercise their own free will.

Thoreau also uses symbolism to convey his message of civil disobedience. One of the most significant symbols he employs is that of the Concord River. Thoreau describes the river as a symbol of freedom and resistance against oppression. He writes, “I have thought that Walden Pond would be a good place for business, not solely on account of the railroad and the ice trade; it offers advantages which it may not be good policy to divulge; it is a good port and a good foundation. No Neva marshes to be filled; though you must everywhere build on piles of your own driving. It is said that a flood-tide, with a westerly wind, and ice in the Neva, would sweep St. Petersburg from the face of the earth.” This passage highlights the idea that the river represents a force that cannot be controlled or contained by the government.

Overall, Thoreau’s use of metaphors and symbolism in “Civil Disobedience” serves to emphasize his message of nonviolent resistance against unjust laws. By employing these literary devices, Thoreau is able to convey complex ideas in a way that is both accessible and powerful.

Thoreau’s Views on Nature and their Connection to Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s views on nature were deeply intertwined with his philosophy of civil disobedience. He believed that nature was a source of inspiration and guidance for individuals seeking to resist unjust laws and government policies. Thoreau saw nature as a symbol of freedom and self-reliance, and he believed that individuals who spent time in nature were better equipped to resist the pressures of conformity and social norms. In his essay “Walking,” Thoreau wrote, “In wildness is the preservation of the world.” This statement reflects his belief that nature is essential to the preservation of individual freedom and the natural world. Thoreau’s views on nature were not just aesthetic or romantic; they were deeply political and had practical implications for his philosophy of civil disobedience. By connecting nature to civil disobedience, Thoreau was able to articulate a powerful critique of the state and its laws, and he inspired generations of activists to resist unjust authority in the name of freedom and justice.

Thoreau’s Critique of War and Militarism

Thoreau’s critique of war and militarism is a central theme in his essay “Civil Disobedience.” He argues that war and militarism are not only immoral but also ineffective in achieving their stated goals. Thoreau believes that war only leads to more violence and destruction, and that it is the duty of individuals to resist it through nonviolent means. He writes, “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” Thoreau’s critique of war and militarism is rooted in his belief in individual freedom and the importance of living a life of conscience. He argues that individuals have a responsibility to resist unjust laws and policies, even if it means breaking the law. Thoreau’s ideas about civil disobedience and nonviolent resistance have had a profound impact on social and political movements throughout history, from the civil rights movement to the anti-war movement.

Thoreau’s Views on Education and their Connection to Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s views on education were closely tied to his philosophy of civil disobedience. He believed that education should not be limited to the traditional classroom setting, but rather should encompass a broader understanding of the world and one’s place in it. Thoreau argued that true education comes from experience and self-reflection, rather than simply memorizing facts and figures. This belief is evident in his famous essay “Civil Disobedience,” where he encourages individuals to question authority and think for themselves. Thoreau believed that education should empower individuals to challenge unjust laws and systems, and to actively work towards creating a more just society. In this way, his views on education were intimately connected to his philosophy of civil disobedience, as both were rooted in the idea of individual empowerment and social change.

The Reception and Legacy of Civil Disobedience

The reception and legacy of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience have been significant and far-reaching. The essay has been widely read and studied, and its ideas have influenced many social and political movements throughout history. Thoreau’s call for individual conscience and resistance to unjust laws has inspired civil rights leaders such as Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. The essay’s emphasis on the importance of personal responsibility and nonviolent resistance has also been influential in environmental and anti-war movements. Despite some criticism of Thoreau’s ideas, his legacy as a writer and social critic continues to be celebrated today.

Thoreau’s Influence on Environmentalism and Ecological Ethics

Thoreau’s influence on environmentalism and ecological ethics is undeniable. His writings on the importance of preserving nature and living in harmony with the environment have inspired generations of environmental activists and thinkers. Thoreau’s belief in the intrinsic value of nature and his call for a simpler, more sustainable way of life continue to resonate with those who seek to protect the planet and promote ecological ethics. His ideas have been instrumental in shaping the modern environmental movement and continue to inspire new generations of environmentalists.

Thoreau’s Views on Religion and Spirituality and their Connection to Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s views on religion and spirituality played a significant role in his philosophy of civil disobedience. He believed that individuals should follow their own conscience and inner voice, rather than blindly obeying the laws and rules set by the government. Thoreau saw religion as a personal and individual experience, rather than a set of dogmatic beliefs imposed by an external authority. He believed that spirituality was a way of connecting with the divine within oneself and the natural world, rather than a means of seeking salvation or redemption from an external deity. Thoreau’s emphasis on individualism and self-reliance in his philosophy of civil disobedience was rooted in his belief in the power of the individual to effect change in society. He saw civil disobedience as a means of expressing one’s own moral convictions and challenging the unjust laws and practices of the government. Thoreau’s views on religion and spirituality were thus intimately connected to his philosophy of civil disobedience, as he saw both as ways of asserting one’s own autonomy and challenging the authority of external institutions.

The Contemporary Relevance of Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience

Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a literary masterpiece that has stood the test of time. Its relevance in contemporary society cannot be overstated. Thoreau’s call for individuals to resist unjust laws and government policies is as relevant today as it was in the 19th century. The world is still grappling with issues of inequality, discrimination, and oppression, and Thoreau’s message of nonviolent resistance remains a powerful tool for social change. In a world where governments are increasingly becoming authoritarian and repressive, Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience serves as a reminder that individuals have the power to challenge the status quo and bring about meaningful change. The essay’s emphasis on individual conscience and the importance of taking a stand against injustice is a message that resonates with people of all ages and backgrounds. Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience is a timeless classic that continues to inspire generations of activists and social reformers.

Civil Disobedience

Henry david thoreau, ask litcharts ai: the answer to your questions.

• Table of Contents
• New in this Archive
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

Civil Disobedience

What makes a breach of law an act of civil disobedience? When is civil disobedience morally justified? How should the law respond to people who engage in civil disobedience? Discussions of civil disobedience have tended to focus on the first two of these questions. On the most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies. On this account, people who engage in civil disobedience are willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, as this shows their fidelity to the rule of law. Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, revolutionary action, militant protest and organised forcible resistance, on the other hand.

This picture of civil disobedience raises many questions. Why must civil disobedience be non-violent? Why must it be public, in the sense of forewarning authorities of the intended action, since publicity gives authorities an opportunity to interfere with the action? Why must people who engage in civil disobedience be willing to accept punishment? A general challenge to Rawls's conception of civil disobedience is that it is overly narrow, and as such it predetermines the conclusion that most acts of civil disobedience are morally justifiable. A further challenge is that Rawls applies his theory of civil disobedience only to the context of a nearly just society, leaving unclear whether a credible conception of either the nature or the justification of civil disobedience could follow the same lines in the context of less just societies. Some broader accounts of civil disobedience offered in response to Rawls's view (Raz 1979; Greenawalt 1987) will be examined in the first section of this entry.

This entry has four main sections. The first considers some definitional issues and contrasts civil disobedience with both ordinary offences and other types of dissent. The second analyses two sets of factors relevant to the justification of civil disobedience; one set concerns the disobedient's particular choice of action, the other concerns her motivation for so acting. The third section examines whether people have a right to engage in civil disobedience. The fourth considers what kind of legal response to civil disobedience is appropriate.

1.1 Features of Civil Disobedience

1.2 ordinary offences, 1.3 other types of dissent, 2.1 mode of action, 2.2 motivation for acting, 4.1 theories of punishment, 4.2 punishing civil disobedience, 5. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. definitions.

The term ‘civil disobedience’ was coined by Henry David Thoreau in his 1848 essay to describe his refusal to pay the state poll tax implemented by the American government to prosecute a war in Mexico and to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law. In his essay, Thoreau observes that only a very few people – heroes, martyrs, patriots, reformers in the best sense – serve their society with their consciences, and so necessarily resist society for the most part, and are commonly treated by it as enemies. Thoreau, for his part, spent time in jail for his protest. Many after him have proudly identified their protests as acts of civil disobedience and have been treated by their societies – sometimes temporarily, sometimes indefinitely – as its enemies.

Throughout history, acts of civil disobedience famously have helped to force a reassessment of society's moral parameters. The Boston Tea Party, the suffragette movement, the resistance to British rule in India led by Gandhi, the US civil rights movement led by Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks and others, the resistance to apartheid in South Africa, student sit-ins against the Vietnam War, the democracy movement in Myanmar/Burma led by Aung San Suu Kyi, to name a few, are all instances where civil disobedience proved to be an important mechanism for social change. The ultimate impact of more recent acts of civil disobedience – anti-abortion trespass demonstrations or acts of disobedience taken as part of the environmental movement and animal rights movement – remains to be seen.

Certain features of civil disobedience seem vital not only to its impact on societies and governments, but also to its status as a potentially justifiable breach of law. Civil disobedience is generally regarded as more morally defensible than both ordinary offences and other forms of protest such as militant action or coercive violence. Before contrasting civil disobedience with both ordinary offences and other types of protest, attention should be given to the features exemplified in the influential cases noted above. These features include, amongst other things, a conscientious or principled outlook and the communication of both condemnation and a desire for change in law or policy. Other features commonly cited – publicity, non-violence, fidelity to law – will also be considered here though they prove to be less central than is sometimes assumed. The second part of this section contrasts civil disobedience with ordinary offences and the third part contrasts it with legal protest, rule departures by officials, conscientious objection, radical protest (often labelled ‘terrorism’), and revolutionary action.

Conscientiousness : This feature, highlighted in almost all accounts of civil disobedience, points to the seriousness, sincerity and moral conviction with which civil disobedients breach the law. For many disobedients, their breach of law is demanded of them not only by self-respect and moral consistency but also by their perception of the interests of their society. Through their disobedience, they draw attention to laws or policies that they believe require reassessment or rejection. Whether their challenges are well-founded is another matter, which will be taken up in Section 2.

On Rawls's account of civil disobedience, in a nearly just society, civil disobedients address themselves to the majority to show that, in their considered opinion, the principles of justice governing cooperation amongst free and equal persons have not been respected by policymakers. Rawls's restriction of civil disobedience to breaches that defend the principles of justice may be criticised for its narrowness since, presumably, a wide range of legitimate values not wholly reducible to justice, such as transparency, security, stability, privacy, integrity, and autonomy, could motivate people to engage in civil disobedience. However, Rawls does allow that considerations arising from people's comprehensive moral outlooks may be offered in the public sphere provided that, in due course, people present public reasons, given by a reasonable political conception of justice, sufficient to support whatever their comprehensive doctrines were introduced to support (Rawls 1996). Rawls's proviso grants that people often engage in the public sphere for a variety of reasons; so even when justice figures prominently in a person's decision to use civil disobedience, other considerations could legitimately contribute to her decision to act. The activism of Martin Luther King Jr. is a case in point. King was motivated by his religious convictions and his commitments to democracy, equality, and justice to undertake protests such as the Montgomery bus boycott. Rawls maintains that, while he does not know whether King thought of himself as fulfilling the purpose of the proviso, King could have fulfilled it; and had he accepted public reason he certainly would have fulfilled it. Thus, on Rawls's view, King's activism is civil disobedience.

Since people can undertake political protest for a variety of reasons, civil disobedience sometimes overlaps with other forms of dissent. A US draft-dodger during the Vietnam War might be said to combine civil disobedience and conscientious objection in the same action. And, most famously, Gandhi may be credited with combining civil disobedience with revolutionary action. That said, despite the potential for overlap, some broad distinctions may be drawn between civil disobedience and other forms of protest in terms of the scope of the action and agents' motivations (Section 1.3).

Communication : In civilly disobeying the law, a person typically has both forward-looking and backward-looking aims. She seeks not only to convey her disavowal and condemnation of a certain law or policy, but also to draw public attention to this particular issue and thereby to instigate a change in law or policy. A parallel may be drawn between the communicative aspect of civil disobedience and the communicative aspect of lawful punishment by the state (Brownlee 2012; 2004). Like civil disobedience, lawful punishment is associated with a backward-looking aim to demonstrate condemnation of certain conduct as well as a forward-looking aim to bring about a lasting change in that conduct. The forward and backward-looking aims of punishment apply not only to the particular offence in question, but also to the kind of conduct of which this offence is an example.

There is some dispute over the kinds of policies that civil disobedients may target through their breach of law. Some exclude from the class of civilly disobedient acts those breaches of law that protest the decisions of private agents such as trade unions, banks, private universities, etc. (Raz 1979, 264). Others, by contrast, maintain that disobedience in opposition to the decisions of private agents can reflect a larger challenge to the legal system that permits those decisions to be taken, which makes it appropriate to place this disobedience under the umbrella of civil disobedience (Brownlee 2012; 2007). There is more agreement amongst thinkers that civil disobedience can be either direct or indirect. In other words, civil disobedients can either breach the law they oppose or breach a law which, other things being equal, they do not oppose in order to demonstrate their protest against another law or policy. Trespassing on a military base to spray-paint nuclear missile silos in protest against current military policy would be an example of indirect civil disobedience. It is worth noting that the distinction often drawn between direct civil disobedience and indirect civil disobedience is less clear-cut than generally assumed. For example, refusing to pay taxes that support the military could be seen as either indirect or direct civil disobedience against military policy. Although this act typically would be classified as indirect disobedience, a part of one's taxes, in this case, would have gone directly to support the policy one opposes.

Publicity : The feature of communication may be contrasted with that of publicity. The latter is endorsed by Rawls who argues that civil disobedience is never covert or secretive; it is only ever committed in public, openly, and with fair notice to legal authorities (Rawls 1971, 366). Hugo A. Bedau adds to this that usually it is essential to the dissenter's purpose that both the government and the public know what she intends to do (Bedau 1961, 655). However, although sometimes advance warning may be essential to a dissenter's strategy, this is not always the case. As noted at the outset, publicity sometimes detracts from or undermines the attempt to communicate through civil disobedience. If a person publicises her intention to breach the law, then she provides both political opponents and legal authorities with the opportunity to abort her efforts to communicate (Smart 1991, 206). For this reason, unannounced or (initially) covert disobedience is sometimes preferable to actions undertaken publicly and with fair warning. Examples include releasing animals from research laboratories or vandalising military property; to succeed in carrying out these actions, disobedients would have to avoid publicity of the kind Rawls defends. Such acts of civil disobedience nonetheless may be regarded as ‘open’ when followed soon after by an acknowledgment of the act and the reasons for acting. Openness and publicity, even at the cost of having one's protest frustrated, offer ways for disobedients to show their willingness to deal fairly with authorities.

Non-violence : A controversial issue in debates on civil disobedience is non-violence. Like publicity, non-violence is said to diminish the negative effects of breaching the law. Some theorists go further and say that civil disobedience is, by definition, non-violent. According to Rawls, violent acts likely to injure are incompatible with civil disobedience as a mode of address. ‘Indeed’, says Rawls, ‘any interference with the civil liberties of others tends to obscure the civilly disobedient quality of one's act’ (Rawls 1971, 366).

Even though paradigmatic disobedients like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr embody Rawls's image of non-violent direct action, opponents of Rawls's view have challenged the centrality of non-violence for civil disobedience on several fronts. First, there is the problem of specifying an appropriate notion of violence . It is unclear, for example, whether violence to self, violence to property, or minor violence against others (such as a vicious pinch) should be included in a conception of the relevant kinds of violence. If the significant criterion for a commonsense notion of a violent act is a likelihood of causing injury, however minor, then these kinds of acts count as acts of violence (see Morreall 1991). Second, non-violent acts or legal acts sometimes cause more harm to others than do violent acts (Raz 1979, 267). A legal strike by ambulance workers may well have much more severe consequences than minor acts of vandalism. Third, violence, depending on its form, does not necessarily obscure the communicative quality of a disobedient's action as Rawls and Peter Singer suggests it does (Singer 1973, 86). Limited violence used to achieve a specific objective might heighten the communicative quality of the act by drawing greater attention to the dissenter's cause and by emphasising her seriousness and frustration.

These observations do not alter the fact that non-violent dissent normally is preferable to violent dissent. As Raz observes, non-violence avoids the direct harm caused by violence, and non-violence does not encourage violence in other situations where violence would be wrong, something which an otherwise warranted use of violence may do. Moreover, as a matter of prudence, non-violence does not carry the same risk of antagonising potential allies or confirming the antipathy of opponents (Raz 1979, 267). Furthermore, non-violence does not distract the attention of the public, and it probably denies authorities an excuse to use violent countermeasures against disobedients.

Non-violence, publicity and a willingness to accept punishment are often regarded as marks of disobedients' fidelity to the legal system in which they carry out their protest. Those who deny that these features are definitive of civil disobedience endorse a more inclusive conception according to which civil disobedience involves a conscientious and communicative breach of law designed to demonstrate condemnation of a law or policy and to contribute to a change in that law or policy. Such a conception allows that civil disobedience can be violent, partially covert, and revolutionary. This conception also accommodates vagaries in the practice and justifiability of civil disobedience for different political contexts: it grants that the appropriate model of how civil disobedience works in a context such as apartheid South Africa may differ from the model that applies to a well-ordered, liberal, just democracy. An even broader conception of civil disobedience would draw no clear boundaries between civil disobedience and other forms of protest such as conscientious objection, forcible resistance, and revolutionary action. A disadvantage of this last conception is that it blurs the lines between these different types of protest and so might both weaken claims about the defensibility of civil disobedience and invite authorities and opponents of civil disobedience to lump all illegal protest under one umbrella.

In democratic societies, civil disobedience as such is not a crime. If a disobedient is punished by the law, it is not for civil disobedience, but for the recognised offences she commits, such as blocking a road or disturbing the peace, or trespassing, or damaging property, etc. Therefore, if judges are persuaded, as they sometimes are, either not to punish a disobedient or to punish her differently from other people who breach the same laws, it must be on the basis of some feature or features of her action which distinguish it from the acts of ordinary offenders.

Typically a person who commits an offence has no wish to communicate with her government or society. This is evinced by the fact that usually an offender does not intend to make it known that she has breached the law. Since, in most cases, she wishes to benefit or, at least, not to suffer from her unlawful action, it is in her interests to preserve the secrecy of her conduct. An exception might be where a person's breach is sufficiently minor, such as jaywalking, that concealment is unnecessary since sanction is unlikely to follow. Another exception might be where a person wishes to thumb her nose at authorities by advertising that she has committed a crime. By making an exception of herself and by distancing herself from a legal rule, this ordinary offender communicates a certain disregard for the law. This communication, however, does not normally reflect an aim either to demonstrate conscientiously held objections to that law or to lead society to reform the law. Civil disobedients, by contrast, seek to make their disobedience known to specific members of the community either before or after the fact to demonstrate both the seriousness of their condemnation of that law or policy and their sincere desire for policy change. The difference in communication between the civil disobedient and the ordinary offender reflects a deeper difference in motivation for breaching the law (Brownlee 2012).

A further difference between civil disobedience and common crimes pertains to the willingness of the offender to accept the legal consequences. The willingness of disobedients to accept punishment is taken not only as a mark of (general) fidelity to the law, but also as an assertion that they differ from ordinary offenders. Accepting punishment also can have great strategic value, as Martin Luther King Jr observes: ‘If you confront a man who has been cruelly misusing you, and say “Punish me, if you will; I do not deserve it, but I will accept it, so that the world will know I am right and you are wrong,” then you wield a powerful and just weapon’ (Washington 1991, 348). Moreover, like non-violence, a willingness to accept the legal consequences normally is preferable, and often has a positive impact on the disobedient's cause. This willingness may make the majority realise that what is for them a matter of indifference is for disobedients a matter of great importance (Singer 1973, 84). Similarly, it may demonstrate the purity or selflessness of the disobedient's motives or serve as a means to mobilise more broad-based support (Raz 1979, 265). And yet, punishment can also be detrimental to dissenters' efforts by compromising future attempts to assist others through protest (Greenawalt 1987, 239). Furthermore, the link between a willingness to accept punishment and respect for law can be pulled apart. A revolutionary like Gandhi was happy to go to jail for his offences, but felt no fidelity toward the particular legal system in which he acted.

Although civil disobedience often overlaps broadly with other types of dissent, nevertheless some rough distinctions may be drawn between the key features of civil disobedience and the key features of these other practices.

Legal Protest : The obvious difference between legal protest and civil disobedience is that the former lies within the bounds of the law, but the latter does not. Most of the other features exemplified in civil disobedience can be found in legal protest including a conscientious and communicative demonstration of protest, a desire to bring about through moral dialogue some lasting change in policy or principle, an attempt to educate and to raise awareness, and so on. The difference in legality translates into a more significant, moral difference when placed against the backdrop of a general moral obligation to follow the law. If it is morally wrong to breach the law, then special justification is required for civil disobedience which is not required for legal protest. However, the political regime in which obedience is demanded may be relevant here. David Lyons maintains that the Jim Crow laws (racial segregation laws in force in the southern US until 1964), British colonial rule in India, and chattel slavery in antebellum America offer three refutations of the view that civil disobedience requires moral justification in morally objectionable regimes. According to Lyons, there can be no moral presumption in favour of obedience to the law in such regimes, and therefore no moral justification is required for civil disobedience. ‘Insofar as civil disobedience theory assumes that political resistance requires moral justification even in settings that are morally comparable to Jim Crow,’ says Lyons, ‘it is premised on serious moral error’ (Lyons 1998, 39). If one takes the view that there is no general moral obligation to follow the law (irrespective of regime), then both adherence to the law and breach of law must be judged not on their legality, but on their character and consequences. And this would mean that, even in morally reprehensible regimes, justification may be demanded for civil disobedience that either has significant negative consequences or falls below certain moral standards.

Although questions of justification will be addressed more fully in the next section, it is worth noting here one point in favour of civil disobedience over legal protest. As Bertrand Russell observes, typically it is difficult to make the most salient facts in a dispute known through conventional channels of participation. The controllers of mainstream media tend to give defenders of unpopular views limited space to make their case. Given the sensational news value of illegal methods, however, engaging in civil disobedience often leads to wide dissemination of a position (Russell 1998, 635). John Stuart Mill observes, with regard to dissent in general, that sometimes the only way to make a view heard is to allow, or even to invite, society to ridicule and sensationalise it as intemperate and irrational (Mill 1999). Admittedly, the success of this strategy depends partly on the character of the society in which it is employed; but it should not be ruled out as a strategy for communication.

Rule Departures : A practice distinct from, but related to, civil disobedience is rule departure on the part of authorities. Rule departure is essentially the deliberate decision by an official, for conscientious reasons, not to discharge the duties of her office (Feinberg 1979). It may involve a decision by police not to arrest offenders (cf. Smith 2012) or a decision by prosecutors not to proceed to trial, or a decision by a jury or by a judge to acquit an obviously guilty person. Whether these conscientious acts actually contravene the general duties of the office is debatable. If an official's breach of a specific duty is more in keeping with the spirit and overall aims of the office than a painstaking respect for its particular duties is, then the former might be said to adhere better than the latter does to the demands of the office (Greenawalt 1987, 281)

Rule departures resemble civil disobedience in that both involve dissociation from and condemnation of certain policies and practices. Moreover, both are communicative, though their audiences may differ. The official who departs from the rules of her office addresses her action principally to the individuals or groups whom she intends to assist through her breach of a specific duty. Her action demonstrates to these parties both that she disagrees with a policy that would treat them in a certain way and that her actions align with her commitments. Where civil disobedience and rule departure differ is, first, in the identity of their practitioners. Whereas rule departure typically is an action taken by an agent of the state (including juries), civil disobedience typically is an action taken by citizens (including officials acting as ordinary citizens and not in the capacity of their official role). Second these practices differ in their legality. Whether rule departure actually involves a breach of law is unclear. Civil disobedience, by contrast, involves the breach of a law currently on the books. A third difference between rule departure and civil disobedience is that, unlike civil disobedience, rule departure does not usually expose those who employ it to the risks of sanction or punishment (Feinberg 1979)

Conscientious Objection : This kind of protest may be understood as a violation of the law motivated by the dissenter's belief that she is morally prohibited to follow the law because the law is either bad or wrong, totally or in part. The conscientious objector may believe, for example, that the general character of the law in question is morally wrong (as an absolute pacifist would believe of conscription), or that the law extends to certain cases which it should not cover (an orthodox Christian would regard euthanasia as murder) (Raz 1979, 263). While commonly taken to refer to pacifist objections to military service, conscientious objection, says Raz, may apply to any law, negative or positive, that a person believes for moral reasons she is compelled to disobey. A narrower conception of conscientious objection, described as conscientious refusal, characterises this kind of disobedience as non-compliance with a more or less direct legal injunction or administrative order (Rawls 1971, 368). Examples would be the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag or Thoreau's refusal to pay his taxes (it is interesting that the action of the man who coined the term ‘civil disobedience’ is regarded by many as lying at the periphery of what counts as civil disobedience). Whereas conscientious refusal is undertaken with the assumption that authorities are aware of the breach of law, conscientious evasion is undertaken with the assumption that the breach of law is wholly covert. The devout person who continues to practice her religion in secret after it has been banned does not protest against the law, but breaches it covertly for moral reasons. The personal nature of this disobedience commands respect, as it suggests modesty and reflection, which more vocal and confident displays of conviction may lack.

The differences between civil disobedience and conscientious evasion are easier to identify than those between civil disobedience and conscientious refusal or conscientious objection. Although conscientious objection typically is not characterised by the aim to communicate to government and society either that a law has been breached or the reasons behind the breach, nevertheless many acts commonly classified as conscientious objection – tax avoidance and resistance to conscription – have a public or communicative component. Moreover, when such actions are taken by many people their collective impact can approximate the kind of communicative protest exemplified in civil disobedience.

A more obvious difference between civil disobedience and conscientious objection is that, whereas the former is invariably illegal, sometimes the latter is legal. In the context of military conscription, some legal systems regard conscientious objection as a legitimate ground for avoiding frontline military service.

Radical Protest : Some forms of dissent such as coercive violence, organised forcible resistance, militant action, intimidation, and terrorisation lie further outside the realm of tolerated (or tolerable) political action than civil disobedience does. There are reasons to avoid labelling such disobedience (or anything else) as ‘terrorism’. Not only is the term ‘terrorism’ inflammatory, but also it is bandied about by governments to capture an overly broad range of actions. Whereas ‘civil disobedience’ has developed as a positive term which many people apply to their own protests, ‘terrorism’ is an epithet applied only to the actions of others. Given the highly negative connotations of this term, its (philosophical) usefulness is questionable. Less loaded notions of intimidation, terrorisation, forcible resistance, and severe violence offer greater space for a proper analysis of the justifiability of using such measures in political protest.

While a civil disobedient does not necessarily oppose the regime in which she acts, the militant or radical protester is deeply opposed to that regime (or a core aspect of that regime). This protester uses modes of communication unlikely to persuade others of the merits of her position. Her aims are more urgent and extreme than those of the civil disobedient; she seeks rapid change through brutal strategies of coercion and intimidation, not through strategies of persuasion and moral appeal. And often her action includes force or extreme violence as a key component. Given the nature of her conduct and objectives, she is likely to try to evade the legal consequences of her action. This is less often the case for civil disobedients.

Revolutionary Action : The difference between radical protest and revolutionary action may be as difficult to specify as that between revolutionary action and civil disobedience. One point of difference amongst the three concerns the nature of the objectives. Acts of civil disobedience often have focused and limited objectives. Acts of terrorisation or large-scale coercive violence are typically associated with a general aim of generating fear and insecurity while keeping any specific aims or demands oblique. Revolutionary action is typified by a comprehensive objective to bring about a regime change. Both acts of radical protest and acts of civil disobedience can of course fall within a revolutionary project, and may even coincide with each other (as they perhaps did in the sabotage strategies used by Nelson Mandela and the African National Congress).

As a general practice, revolution, like radical protest, does not seek to persuade the government to change established policies. But, unlike much radical protest, revolutionary action may seek to persuade the society under that government that a change in regime is required. If revolutionaries seek to persuade the government of anything, it is that it should cease to be the government. In India, Gandhi had some success in this project. Once the movement became irresistible, the British left India fairly peacefully. But Gandhi's revolutionary project may be contrasted with other revolutions such as the French revolution, or even the South African revolution, where there were endorsements of revolutionary terror. Large-scale resistance that incorporates terrorisation is quite a different enterprise from the non-violent resistance that distinguished Gandhi's protest. Since, as noted above, people may engage in dissent for numerous reasons, acts of civil disobedience like Gandhi's that are guided by conscientious commitments can also be driven by revolutionary aims.

The various points of contact and overlap amongst different types of political protest suggest that there is no one-dimensional continuum from weak to strong dissent. There is more plausibility in the idea of a multi-dimensional continuum of protest, which recognises the complexities in such critical points of contrast as legality, violence, harm, communication, motivation, and persuasiveness.

2. Justification

On many views, an analysis of the justifiability of civil disobedience must consider not only the dissenter's particular action and its likely consequences, but also her motivation for engaging in this act of civil disobedience. Factors relevant to a disobedient's choice of action include: its illegality, its use as a last resort or first resort, any coordination with other dissenters, the likelihood of success, the directness or indirectness of the action, and the expected harm. Factors relevant to motivation include: the merit or lack thereof in the dissenter's cause, her reasons for defending that cause, and her reasons for engaging in this form of protest. Although they are examined separately below, these two sets of factors inevitably overlap.

The task of defending civil disobedience is commonly undertaken with the assumption that in reasonably just, liberal societies people have a general moral obligation to follow the law. In the history of philosophy, many arguments have been given for legal obligation (often called ‘political obligation’). Plato's Socrates, in the Crito , offers at least two lines of argument for legal obligation in order to defend his decision not to escape from prison. First, Socrates emphasises the importance of moral consistency; he would prefer to give up his life than to compromise his principles. A basic principle for Socrates is that a person must never do wrong or injury in return for wrong. To escape without persuading the state would be to try to destroy it and its laws. Second, Socrates maintains that he has an obligation to follow the laws of Athens since he has tacitly agreed to do so and since he enjoys the rights and benefits of citizenship. This voluntarist line of argument is also espoused later by John Locke, who argues that we have a duty to follow the law only when we have consented to its rule. This view contrasts with the non-voluntarist position of David Hume, according to which the obligation to follow the law is rooted in the value of government under law. From these two traditions rise the principal contemporary arguments for legal obligation, which concern respectively consent, gratitude, promise-keeping, fairness, necessary institutions, and public good. Many of the contemporary voluntarist and non-voluntarist arguments have been criticised in recent debates, giving rise to the view that, while there are both ordinary reasons to follow the law and strong moral obligations to follow particular laws, there is no general moral obligation to follow the law. One reason to think there is no such obligation is that the legality of an action does not significantly affect its moral status (Smith 1973). The claim is that jaywalking across an empty street, for example, is hardly reprehensible and its illegality does not make it more reprehensible. Similarly, spitting at someone's feet or refusing without cause to acknowledge that person is reprehensible and its legality does not diminish that.

On the assumption that people have a pro tanto obligation to follow the law (or at least those laws that are not excessively unjust), it follows that people then have a pro tanto obligation to use the proper legal channels of political participation before resorting to illegal methods. On this view, civil disobedience can be justified only when employed as a last resort. But since causes defended by a minority are often those most opposed by persons in power, legal channels may be less than wholly effective. Moreover, it is unclear when a person could claim to have reached the situation of last resort; she could continue to use the same tired legal methods without end. To ward off such challenges, Rawls suggests that, if past actions have shown the majority to be immovable or apathetic, then further attempts may reasonably be thought fruitless and one may be confident one's civil disobedience is a last resort.

Another condition for civil disobedience to be justified, according to Rawls, is that disobedients coordinate with other minorities. Since minority groups are equally justified in resorting to civil disobedience when they have sufficiently weighty objections, these groups should avoid undermining each others' efforts through simultaneous appeals to the attention of society and government. Some coordination of activities is required, says Rawls, to regulate the overall level of dissent (Rawls 1971, 374–5). While there is some merit to this condition, civil disobedience that does not meet it might still be justifiable. In some cases, there will be no time or opportunity to coordinate with other minorities. And in other cases, other minority groups may be unable or unwilling to coordinate. It is an open question then whether the refusal or inability of other groups to cooperate should affect the ultimate defensibility of a person's decision to engage in civil disobedience.

A reason for Rawls to defend this coordination requirement is that, in most cases, it serves a more important concern, namely, the achievement of good consequences. It is often argued that civil disobedience can only be justified if there is a high probability of producing positive change through that disobedience. Only this can justify exposing one's society to the risk of harm. The harms usually identified with civil disobedience are as follows. First, civil disobedience can be a divisive force in society. Second, since civil disobedience is normally designed to attract public attention, it can lead people, as a result, to think of resorting to disobedience to achieve whatever changes in law or policy they find justified (Raz 1979, 262). Third, civil disobedience can encourage more than just other civil disobedience; it can encourage a general disrespect for the law, particularly where the law is perceived as being lenient toward certain kinds of offences.

In response to these challenges, one might question the empirical claims that civil disobedience is divisive and that it has the consequence of leading others to use disobedience to achieve changes in policy. One might also question whether it necessarily would be a bad thing if civil disobedience had these consequences. Concerning likelihood of success, civil disobedience actually can seem most justifiable when the situation appears hopeless and when the government refuses to listen to conventional forms of communication. Additionally, even when general success seems unlikely, civil disobedience might be defended for any reprieve from harm that it brings to victims of a bad law or policy. Tree-hugging, for example, can delay or curtail a clear-cut logging scheme and thereby prolong the protection of an eco-system.

Two final factors concerning a disobedient's choice of action are non-violence and directness. Many theorists regard non-violence as necessary to the justifiability of civil disobedience. But, as noted earlier, there can be good reasons to prefer strategic use of violence in civil disobedience to the harm and injustice of the law. Sometimes the wrong that a dissenter perceives may be so iniquitous that it is right to use violence to root it out. Such violence may be necessary to preserve or to re-establish the rights and civil liberties that coercive practices seek to suspend (Raz 1979). Concerning directness, some argue that civil disobedience is more justifiable the more direct it is since direct disobedience targets the specific legal wrong that prompted it (Greenawalt 1987, 235). While directness may ensure that the objective of the dissent is understood, it has disadvantages; and in some contexts direct action cannot be justified. When direct disobedience would fail to treat others with respect or would cause far greater harm than either adherence to the law or indirect disobedience would cause, then indirect disobedience has a greater claim to justification. But, when indirect civil disobedience would be either misconstrued or viewed in isolation from the law opposed, then direct disobedience, assuming it meets certain moral requirements (which are determined by the content of the law opposed), may have greater justification. People who use indirect disobedience have, other things being equal, no objective reasons to breach the law that they breach. This means that the justification for their disobedience must turn solely on the value of that action as the appropriate vehicle through which to communicate their objection.

As a vehicle for communication, civil disobedience has much to be said for it. It was noted in Section 1.3 that civil disobedience can often better contribute to a dialogue with society and the state than legal protest can since controllers of mainstream media tend not to give unpopular views a hearing unless they are advocated through sensational means such as illegal protest. But, as the above points have indicated, the justifiability of an act of civil disobedience depends greatly on its specific features. Civil disobedience sometimes serves primarily to inform and to educate the public about an issue. But other times, it acts by confronting the majority with the higher costs of retaining a given law or policy in the face of continued, concerted opposition. The nature of these strategies and, as discussed below, the motivations for selecting one over another inform an analysis of justifiability.

On many views, for an act of civil disobedience to be justified, it is insufficient that the dissenter's act meet criteria such as those noted above. It is equally important that she choose that action for the right reasons. The first requirement she must satisfy is that her cause be well-founded. A dissenter may believe that her cause is just and that her disobedience is morally permissible, but she might be mistaken either about the facts or about her principles. Assuming her challenge is well-founded, there are two further issues. The first pertains to her reasons for supporting this cause. The second pertains to her reasons for taking this particular act of disobedience.

Concerning the former, if a person advocates a legitimate cause such as equal rights for black Americans simply for the reason that she seeks re-election or promotion or the admiration of friends while having no real sympathy for this cause, then she acts not for decisive reasons. To be fully justified in her defence of this cause, she must act on the basis of good reasons to support equality amongst peoples; such reasons could include her sense of injustice for the ill-treatment of black Americans or her respect for the dignity of persons or her appreciation that real equality of rights best serves the interests of all American people. It would be appropriate to judge negatively the character of a person who was improperly motivated to take praiseworthy action in defence of others' rights.

Concerning the latter, sometimes reasons apply to a situation but do not favour the particular action that a person takes. When deciding how best to defend a legitimate cause, a person must give thought to the appropriate strategy to adopt. A person may have reasons for engaging in one form of disobedience, but choose to engage in another form that is not supported by these reasons. For example, she may have an undefeated reason to participate in a road block because this action is well suited to her political concerns and is one that her government understands and responds well to or because this action has a public impact that does not greatly harm the interests of others; but, she has no undefeated reason, say, to trespass on government property or to engage in vandalism. In taking the latter actions, she is guilty of a certain error of judgment about which actions are supported by reasons that admittedly apply (See Gardner and Macklem 2002). Given her error, the best she could claim is that her conduct is excused, as she had reason to believe that she had reason to undertake that particular form of civil disobedience. When, by contrast, a person's civilly disobedient action is supported by undefeated reasons that apply to her situation then her choice of action is justified. The justification for her action stems from its appropriateness as the action to take. Its appropriateness is structured in part by the political regime, the tone of the social environment, the actions taken by other political participants, and so on. All of these factors bear on the appropriateness of a given action and the manner in which it is performed, and thus determine to what extent the reasons that support it provide a justification.

The various constraints and requirements discussed above do not amount to a complete defence for civil disobedience. A fuller defence would appeal to the social value of civil disobedience. Justified civil disobedience, says Rawls, can serve to inhibit departures from justice and to correct departures when they occur; thus it can act as a stabilising force in society (Rawls 1971, 383). Justice aside, civil disobedience and dissent more generally contribute to the democratic exchange of ideas by forcing the champions of dominant opinion to defend their views. Mill maintains in On Liberty that if there are any persons who contest a received opinion, we should thank them for it, open our minds to listen to them, and rejoice that there is someone to do for us what we otherwise ought to do ourselves (Mill 1999, 90). In fact, one could argue that those who breach the law in justified civil disobedience demonstrate responsible citizenship or civic virtue. Richard Dagger argues that

To be virtuous…is to perform well a socially necessary or important role. This does not mean that the virtuous person must always go along with the prevailing views or attitudes. On the contrary, Socrates and John Stuart Mill have persuaded many people to believe that questioning and challenging the prevailing views are among the highest forms of virtue (Dagger 1997, 14).

This view of dissent and justified civil disobedience aligns with an increasingly common perception that our responsibilities as citizens go well beyond any obligation to follow the law. Indeed, under certain conditions, our obligations are to resist unjust and unfair schemes, and this can include a duty to disobey the law (Delmas 2014).

An issue associated with, but distinct from, that of justification is whether people have a right to engage in civil disobedience. Most thinkers who have considered civil disobedience defend a limited right to such protest. Rawls, for example, maintains that, even in a nearly just society, a person may be supposed to have a right to engage in civil disobedience when three conditions are met. These are the conditions he sets for justified civil disobedience: it is undertaken 1) in response to an instance of substantial and clear injustice, 2) as a last resort and 3) in coordination with other minority groups. Rawls's approach has been criticised for not clearly distinguishing his account of justified civil disobedience from an account of the disobedience which people have a right to take. There is much disagreement over the kinds of actions that can be captured by rights. Some theorists, such as John Mackie, argue that there can be no right to perform a morally wrong action since wrong actions are acts we are morally required not to perform (Mackie 1978). Others, such as Raz, argue that to restrict rights to morally right actions is to misunderstand the nature of rights. Rights of conduct protect a certain sphere of autonomy and liberty for the agent with which interference by others is restricted, that is to say, rights of conduct imply that interference with that conduct is unjustified even when the conduct is itself unjustified. One does not require a right, Raz observes, to do the right thing. But one often does require a right to do what one should not do (cf. Waldron 1981). On this view, the limits of the right to political participation, for example, are set not by the nature of people's political objectives, but by the form of the actions they employ to realise those objectives.

According to Raz, when one considers the idea of a moral right to civil disobedience, one must appreciate that this right extends to cases in which people should not exercise it. To say that there is a right to civil disobedience is to allow the legitimacy of resorting to this form of political action to one's political opponents. It is to allow that the legitimacy of civil disobedience does not depend on the rightness of one's cause (Raz 1979, 268).

In his account of a right to civil disobedience, Raz places great emphasis on the kind of regime in which a disobedient acts. Raz argues that only in an illiberal regime do certain individuals have a right to civil disobedience.

Given that the illiberal state violates its members' right to political participation, individuals whose rights are violated are entitled, other things being equal, to disregard the offending laws and exercise their moral right as if it were recognised by law… [M]embers of the illiberal state do have a right to civil disobedience which is roughly that part of their moral right to political participation which is not recognised in law (Raz 1979, 272–273).

By contrast, in a liberal state, Raz argues, a person's right to political activity is, by hypothesis, adequately protected by law. Therefore, in such a regime, the right to political participation cannot ground a right to civil disobedience.

Against Raz, one could argue, as David Lefkowitz does, that when a person appeals to political participation rights to defend her disobedience she does not necessarily criticise the law for outlawing her action. Lefkowitz maintains that members of minorities can appreciate that democratic discussions often must be cut short so that decisions may be taken. As such, persons who engage in political disobedience may view current policy as the best compromise between the need to act and the need to accommodate continued debate. Nonetheless, they also can observe that, with greater resources or further time for debate, their view might have held sway. Given this possibility, the right to political participation must include a right to continue to contest the result after the votes are counted or the decisions taken. And this right should include suitably constrained civil disobedience because the best conception of political participation rights is one that reduces as much as possible the impact that luck has on the popularity of a view (Lefkowitz 2007; see also Ceva 2015).

An alternative response to Raz questions whether the right to civil disobedience must be derived from rights to political participation. Briefly, the right to civil disobedience could be grounded on something other than participation rights such as a right to object on the basis of conscience. Whether such a right to conscience would fall under participation rights depends on the expansiveness of the latter rights. When the right to participate is understood to accommodate only legal protest, then the right conscientiously to object, which commonsensically includes civil disobedience, must be viewed as distinct from political participation rights.

A further challenge to Raz might be that real societies do not align with this dichotomy between liberal and illiberal regimes; rather they fall along a spectrum of liberality and illiberality, being both more or less liberal relative to each other and being more or less liberal in some domains than in others. Given the stringency of Raz's notion of a liberal regime, it is unlikely that any society could be wholly liberal. So, although Raz may have grounds to hold that in the truly liberal society a right to civil disobedience would not exist and that, to the extent that our society approximates such a regime, the case for such a right diminishes, nevertheless in the majority of real societies, if not all real societies, a right to civil disobedience does exist. Note that to make legally protected participation fully adequate, the liberal society would have to address Russell's charge that controllers of the media give defenders of unpopular views few opportunities to make their case unless they resort to sensational methods such as disobedience.

Ronald Dworkin rests the right to civil disobedience not just on a person's right to political participation, but on all of the rights that she has against her government. People may be supposed to have a fundamental right against the government, such as freedom of expression, when that right is important to their dignity, to their standing as persons equally entitled to concern and respect, or to some other personal value of consequence. A person has a right to disobey a law, says Dworkin, whenever that law wrongly invades her rights against the government (Dworkin 1977, 192). Thus, the moral right to breach the law is not a separate right, like a right of conscience, additional to other rights against the government. It is that part of people's rights against the government which the government fails to honour.

Together the three above positions bring out some key points of disagreement amongst philosophers on the issue of a right to civil disobedience. First, philosophers disagree over the grounds of this right. Is it derivative of a right to participate in the political decision-making process? Is it derivative of other rights? Is it founded on a person's equal status as a being worthy of concern and respect? Second, philosophers disagree over the parameters of the right. Does it extend to all acts of civil disobedience or only to those acts that meet certain conditions of justifiability? Third, philosophers differ over the kinds of regimes in which the right arises. Does it exist only in illiberal regimes or does it hold in all regimes including just regimes? A final issue, not brought out in any of the above views, is whether the right to civil disobedience extends to indirect civil disobedience. Presumably, it should, but none of the above positions offer arguments on which one could base such a claim.

4. Punishment

The final issue to consider is how authorities should respond to civil disobedience. The question of appropriate legal response applies, first, to the actions of law-enforcers when deciding whether and how to intervene in a civilly disobedient action, whether to arrest, whether to charge, and so on. It applies, second, to the actions of prosecutors when deciding whether to proceed to trial. Finally, it applies to the actions of judges (and juries) when deciding whether to convict and (for judges) how much to punish. The focus here will be the issue of appropriate punishment.

To determine when, if ever, punishment of civil disobedience is appropriate, it is necessary first to say a few things about the nature, purposes, and justification of lawful punishment by the state. The three basic issues of punishment are: Why punish?, Whom to punish?, and How much to punish? The justifications for punishment can be forward-looking, backward-looking or some combination of the two. Jeremy Bentham, for one, takes a forward-looking, consequentialist view of punishment. He holds that punishment is an evil that is only ever justified if its employment prevents some greater evil that would arise from not punishing (Bentham, 1789, 158).

A key variant of the consequentialist approach focuses on deterrence. Punishment is justified on deterrence grounds if it prevents and/or discourages both the offender and others from breaching the law. Deterrence theories are criticised for treating people as brutes not rational agents capable of responding to moral reasons because the deterrent element of punishment gives people a prudential reason (relating to the prospect of punishment), not a moral reason, to refrain from breaching the law. Deterrence theories also are criticised for allowing persons who are not proper objects of punishment to be punished when this succeeds in deterring other people from breaching the law. Finally, deterrence theories are criticised for making the parameters for appropriate punishment excessively broad in allowing that whatever punishment is needed to deter people is the justified punishment.

Desert theory, by contrast, takes a backward-looking view of the purpose and justification of punishment, focusing on what the offender deserves for her action. Desert theory is much more concerned than is deterrence theory with punishing only persons who are the proper objects of punishment and with punishing those persons only as much as they deserve. Desert theory aims at a response to the offence that is proportionate to its seriousness as an offence. Seriousness is determined by two factors: an offender's culpability and the harm caused by her action. Desert theories are criticised for insufficiently defending the view that the guilty always should be punished. Although the intuition that the guilty deserve to suffer is widely shared, it is not obvious why they deserve this. Desert theories are also criticised for assuming both that fact-finders can determine what offenders deserve and that the deserved punishment is necessarily the justified punishment: should people always be punished as they deserve?

A variant of desert theory is the communicative theory of punishment, which takes both a forward-looking and a backward-looking view of the purposes of punishment. The purposes of punishment on a communicative account are both to convey the state's condemnation of the action and to lead the offender to repent her action and to reform her conduct. On a communicative conception of punishment, the state aims to engage with the offender in a moral dialogue so that she appreciates the moral reasons she has to follow the law. According to some communicative theories, condemnation itself sufficiently justifies punishment. Punishment may be seen as a secular form of penance that vividly confronts the offender with the effects of her crime (Duff 1998, 162). According to other, less monistic communicative theories, communication of censure alone is insufficient to justify punishment; added to it must be the aim of deterrence (von Hirsch 1998, 171). Still other communicative theories add different considerations to the grounds for justification. On one pluralistic view, a distinction is drawn between the punishment that is deserved according to justice and the punishment that is actually justified. When, for example, an offender demonstrates repentance for her offence prior to punishment, the law has reason to be merciful toward her and to impose a less severe punishment than that which she deserves (Tasioulas 2006). Mercy involves a charitable concern for the well-being of the offender as a potential recipient of deserved punishment. Given this offender's repentance, the justified punishment in this case is less than it would be were there no grounds for mercy.

Deterrence systems of punishment recommend a simple approach to civil disobedience. Since the purpose and justification of punishment is to deter people from breaching the law, a deterrence system would impose on civil disobedients whatever punishment was necessary and sufficient to achieve that end. Whether that punishment would be less or more severe than, or equal to, that imposed on ordinary offenders depends on empirical considerations. Sometimes greater punishment than that required for ordinary offenders would be in order since disobedients who are serious in their moral conviction may not be deterred by standard punishments. Other times, however, less punishment than that for ordinary offenders would be in order since disobedients usually are not ‘hardened’ criminals and thus may need less severe treatment to deter them from offending.

In contrast to deterrence systems, monistic desert systems and communicative systems of punishment would only punish civil disobedients if, and to the extent that, they deserve to be punished. A pluralistic communicative system, which gives weight to considerations of mercy as well as retribution or desert, would only punish to the extent that the punishment was justified (not to the extent that it was deserved) since mercy toward the offender might recommend punishing her less than she deserves according to justice. The pluralistic approach raises the question whether being motivated by civil disobedience might give the law a reason to show mercy towards an offender. One might argue that a disobedient's conviction and commitments, which make it very difficult for her both to adhere to norms that violate those commitments and to desist from using effective means of protest, are facts about her circumstances that give the law reason to show mercy toward her. This would lessen the severity of any justified response from the law.

For desert and communicative theories concerned solely with justice-based desert, the key question is whether disobedients deserve censure, and if so, how much? There are at least three possible replies. One is that disobedients deserve the same punishment as the ordinary offenders who breach the same laws. There are several reasons to take this view. First, as Greenawalt puts it, the demands of proportionality would seem to recommend a uniform application of legal prohibitions. Since trespass is prohibited, persons who breach trespass laws in protest of either those laws or other laws are equally liable to persons who breach trespass laws for private purposes. Second, also from Greenawalt comes the suggestion that any principle that officials may excuse justified illegal acts will result in some failures to punish unjustified acts, for which the purposes of punishment would be more fully served. Even when officials make correct judgments about which acts to excuse, citizens may draw mistaken inferences, and restraints of deterrence and norm acceptance may be weakened for unjustified acts that resemble justified ones (Greenawalt 1987, 273). Therefore all such violations, justified and unjustified, should be treated the same.

But much of this turns on the assumption that civilly disobedient breaches of law are in fact comparable to ordinary offences and deserve a comparable response from the law. The discussion in Section 1 of the key features of civil disobedience showed that it differs greatly from ordinary offences both in motivation and in mode of action, let alone moral justification. This would suggest that civil disobedience should be regarded in the eyes of the law as a different kind of disobedience from common crimes. This leaves two options: civil disobedience deserves greater censure or it deserves less censure than ordinary crimes do.

There are reasons to believe that civil disobedients should be dealt with more severely than ordinary offenders are. First, there is the fact that disobedients seem to have put themselves above the law in preferring their own moral judgment about a certain issue to that of the democratic decision-making process and the rule of law. (Although some judges have endorsed this caricature, it is worth noting that it clashes with how both dissenters and many theorists characterise their activities; cf. Rawls 1971; Greenawalt 1987; Markovits 2006.) Second, the communicative aspect of civil disobedience could be said to aggravate such offences since it usually is attended by much greater publicity than most covert violations are. This forces legal authorities to concern themselves with the possibility that law-abiding citizens will feel distressed, insecure and perhaps imposed on if no action is taken. So, notes Greenawalt, while authorities may quietly let minor breaches pass, failure to respond to violations performed, in some respect, in the presence of authority, may undercut claims that the rules and the persons who administered them deserve respect (Greenawalt 1987, 351–2). Third, any use of violence would seem to aggravate civil disobedience particularly when it increases the harm of the offence or when it directly incites further and unjustified instances of violence. And although violence may eloquently communicate a dissenter's seriousness and frustration, it changes the nature of the dialogue. It pushes authorities to respond in ways consonant with their stance on violence – responses which may be harsher than those they would otherwise wish to make toward acts of civil disobedience that defend values they can appreciate.

The final possible view is that civil disobedients should be dealt with more leniently than ordinary offenders are, at least when their disobedience is morally justified. These offenders are conscientiously motivated and often their protests serve the interests of society by forcing a desirable re-examination of moral boundaries. That said, moral justifications do not usually translate into legal justifications and disobedients have been notoriously unsuccessful at advancing a defence of necessity (a defence that their action was legally justified being the lesser of two evils). Whether the law should be more accommodating of their conscientious motivation and efforts to engage in moral dialogue with government and society is a topic for further debate.

Some theorists maintain that civil disobedience is an outdated, overanalysed notion that little reflects current forms of political activism, which tend toward more extreme modes of engagement. Herbert Storing has suggested that ‘The most striking characteristic of civil disobedience is its irrelevance to the problems of today.’ (Storing 1991, 85). He said, shortly after the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr, that the fashion of civil disobedience is as likely to die out as it was to burst forth under the words of King. There is of course much evidence to show that Storing was mistaken in his predictions for the popularity of civil disobedience as a mode of dissent. Certainly though there have been shifts in the paradigm forms of civil disobedience in recent years; yet these shifts have occurred largely within the framework of conscientious communication discussed at the outset. The historical paradigms of Gandhi, King, the suffragettes, and Mandela are representative of that kind of civil disobedience which aims to guarantee legal protection for the basic rights of a specific constituency. Such disobedience contrasts with much contemporary civil disobedience, which focuses not on individuals' basic rights, but on broader issues or special interests such as the environment, animal rights, nuclear disarmament, globalisation, foreign policy, and so on.

Civil disobedience taken in support of concerns such as the environment or animal rights may be seen in part as a response to some breakdown in the mechanisms for citizen engagement in the decision-making process. This breakdown might be termed a democratic deficit (Markovits 2005). Such deficits in that dialogue may be an inevitable part of real democracies, and disobedience undertaken to correct those deficits may be said to reflect, to varying degrees, dissenters' sensitivity to democratic ideals. Civil disobedience remains today very much a vibrant part of liberal democracies and there are significant issues concerning civil disobedience for philosophers to address, particularly in how this practice may be distinguished from more radical forms of protest and how this practice should be treated by the law.

• Arendt, Hannah, 1972. Crises of the Republic: Lying in Politics, Civil Disobedience, On Violence, Thoughts on Politics and Revolution , New York: Harcourt.
• Bedau, Hugo A., 1961. ‘On Civil Disobedience,’ The Journal of Philosophy , 58 (21): 653–661.
• ––– (ed.), 1991. Civil Disobedience in Focus , London: Routledge.
• Bentham, Jeremy, 1789, An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation , J. H. Burns and H. L. A. Hart (eds.), London: Athlone Press, 1970.
• Bilgrami, Akeel, 2002. ‘Gandhi's Integrity: The Philosophy Behind the Politics,’ Postcolonial Studies , 5 (1): 79–93.
• Brownlee, Kimberley, 2012. Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• –––, 2007. ‘The Communicative Aspects of Civil Disobedience and Lawful Punishment,’ Criminal Law and Philosophy , 1 (2): 179–192.
• –––, 2004. ‘Features of a Paradigm Case of Civil Disobedience,’ in Res Publica , 10 (4): 337–351.
• Ceva, Emanuela, 2015. ‘Why Toleration Is Not the Appropriate Response to Dissenting Minorities' Claims,’ in The European Journal of Philosophy , 23(3): 633–651. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0378.2012.00563.x
• Cohen, Carl, 1970. ‘Defending Civil Disobedience,’ The Monist , 54 (4): 469–487.
• Dagger, Richard, 1997. Civic Virtues , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Delmas, Candice, 2014. ‘Political Resistance: A Matter of Fairness,’ Law and Philosophy , 33(4): 465–488. doi:10.1007/s10982-013-9189-y
• Duff, Antony, 1998. ‘Desert and Penance,’ in Principled Sentencing , Andrew Ashworth and Andrew von Hirsch (eds.), Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Duff, Antony and Garland David (eds.), 1994. A Reader on Punishment , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 1977. Taking Rights Seriously , London: Duckworth.
• –––, 1986. Law's Empire , Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Enoch, David, 2002. ‘Some Arguments against Conscientious Objection and Civil Disobedience Refuted,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 227–253.
• Farrell, Daniel M., 1977. ‘Paying the Penalty: Justifiable Civil Disobedience and the Problem of Punishment,’ in Philosophy and Public Affairs , 6 (2): 165–184.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1979. ‘Civil Disobedience in the Modern World,’ in Humanities in Society , 2 (1): 37–60.
• –––, 1994. ‘The Expressive Function of Punishment,’ in A Reader on Punishment , Antony Duff and David Garland (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gans, Chaim, 2002. ‘Right and Left: Ideological Disobedience in Israel,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 19–71.
• Gardner, John and Macklem, Timothy, 2002. ‘Reasons,’ in Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law , Jules Coleman and Scott Shapiro (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Green, Leslie, 2003. ‘Civil Disobedience and Academic Freedom,’ in Osgoode Hall Law Journal , 41 (2–3): 381–405.
• –––, 2002. ‘Law and Obligations,’ in The Oxford Handbook of Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law , Jules Coleman and Scott Shapiro (eds.), Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Greenawalt, Kent, 1987. Conflicts of Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Goodin, Robert, 2005. ‘Towards an International Rule of Law: Distinguishing International Law-Breakers from Would-Be Law-Makers,’ in Journal of Ethics , 9 (1-2): 225–246.
• Haksar, Vimit, 1976. ‘Rawls and Gandhi on Civil Disobedience,’ in Inquiry , 19: 151–192.
• Hammer, Leonard, 2002. ‘Selective Conscientious Objection and International Human Rights,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 145–169.
• Harel, Alon, 2002. ‘Unconscionable Objection to Conscientious Objection: Notes on Sagi and Shapira,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 219–226.
• Kasher, Asa, 2002. ‘Refusals: Some Neglected Aspects,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 171–180.
• King, Martin Luther Jr., 1991. ‘Letter from Birmingham Jail,’ in Civil Disobedience in Focus , Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge.
• –––, 2001. The Autobiography of Martin Luther King Jr , Claybourne Carson (ed.) New York: IPM/Warner Books.
• Lefkowitz, David, 2007. ‘On a Moral Right to Civil Disobedience,’ in Ethics , 117 (January): 202–233.
• Lippman, Matthew, 1991. ‘Nuremburg and American Justice,’ in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy , 5 (4): 951–977.
• Lyons, David, 1998. ‘Moral Judgment, Historical Reality, and Civil Disobedience,’ in Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27 (1): 31–49.
• Mackie, John, 1978. ‘Can There Be a Right-based Moral Theory?,’ in Midwest Studies in Philosophy , 3: 350–359.
• Mandela, Nelson, 1994. Long Walk to Freedom: the Autobiography of Nelson Mandela , Toronto: Little, Brown and Company.
• Markovits, Daniel, 2005. ‘Democratic Disobedience,’ in Yale Law Journal , 114: 1897–1952.
• McEwen, Stephen J. Jr., 1991. ‘The Protester: A Sentencing Dilemma,’ in Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics, and Public Policy , 5 (4): 987–993.
• Mill, John Stuart, 1999. On Liberty , Edward Alexander (ed.), Peterborough, Ontario: Broadview Press.
• Morreall, John, 1991. ‘The Justifiability of Violent Civil Disobedience,’ in Civil Disobedience in Focus , Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge.
• Murphy, Jeffrie (ed.), 1971. Civil Disobedience and Violence , Belmont, California: Wadsworth.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 2010. Liberty of Conscience: In Defense of America's Tradition of Religious Equality , New York: Basic Books.
• Paz-Fuchs, Amir and Sfard, Michael, 2002. ‘The Fallacies of Objections to Selective Conscientious Objection,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 111–143.
• Plato, Crito , Various editions.
• Rawls, John, 1971. A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1996. Political Liberalism , Second Edition, New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 1999. The Law of Peoples , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Raz, Joseph, 1979. The Authority of Law: Essays on Law and Morality , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• –––, 1994. Ethics in the Public Domain , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Russell, Bertrand, 1998. Autobiography , London: Routledge.
• Sabl, Andrew, 2001. ‘Looking Forward to Justice: Rawlsian Civil Disobedience and its Non-Rawlsian Lessons,’ in The Journal of Political Philosophy , 9 (3): 307–330.
• Sagi, Avi and Shapira, Ron, 2002. ‘Civil Disobedience and Conscientious Objection,’ in Israel Law Review , 36: 181–217.
• Simmons, A. John, 2003. ‘Civil Disobedience and the Duty to Obey the Law,’ in Blackwell Companion to Applied Ethics , R. G. Frey and Christopher Heath Wellman (eds.), Oxford: Blackwell.
• –––, 2001. Justification and Legitimacy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Singer, Peter, 1973. Democracy and Disobedience , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Smart, Brian, 1991. ‘Defining Civil Disobedience,’ in Civil Disobedience in Focus , Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge.
• Smith, M. B. E., 1973. ‘Is There a Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law,’ in Yale Law Journal , 82 (5): 950–976.
• Smith, William, 2012. ‘Policing Civil Disobedience,’ in Political Studies , 60 (4): 826–842.
• Smith, William, 2011. ‘Civil Disobedience and the Public Sphere,’ in The Journal of Political Philosophy , 19 (2): 145–166.
• Storing, Herbert J., 1991. ‘The Case Against Civil Disobedience,’ in Civil Disobedience in Focus , Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge.
• Sunstein, Cass, 2003. Why Societies Need Dissent , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Tasioulas, John, 2003. ‘Mercy,’ in Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society , 103 (2): 101–132.
• –––, 2006. ‘Punishment and Repentance,’ in Philosophy , 81: 279–322.
• Thoreau, Henry David, 1991. ‘Civil Disobedience,’ in Civil Disobedience in Focus , Hugo A. Bedau (ed.), London: Routledge.
• Von Hirsch, Andrew, 1998. ‘Proportionate Sentences: A Desert Perspective,’ in Principled Sentencing , Andrew Ashworth and Andrew Von Hirsch (eds.), Oxford: Hart Publishing.
• Walzer, Michael, 2004. Arguing about War , New Haven: Yale University Press.
• Washington, J. M. (ed.), 1991. Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches of Martin Luther King Jr. , San Francisco: Harper Collins.
• Zinn, Howard, 1968. Disobedience and Democracy: Nine Fallacies on Law and Order , New York: Random House.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up this entry topic at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Comprehensive website on Mahatma Gandhi , maintained by the 3 institutes: Bombay Sarvodaya Mandal, Gandhi Book Centre, and Gujarat Vidyapith Ahmedabad
• The Martin Luther King Jr Research and Education Institute

civil rights | legal obligation and authority | -->legal philosophy --> | punishment | Socrates | terrorism | Thoreau, Henry David

Acknowledgments

I thank Adrian Blau, Adam Cureton, Alan Hamlin, Jonathan Quong, Ben Saunders, Hillel Steiner, Zofia Stemplowska, and John Tasioulas for their useful suggestions. I thank Joseph Raz and John Tasioulas for valuable discussions on this topic.

Copyright © 2013 by Kimberley Brownlee < k . brownlee @ warwick . ac . uk >

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2016 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Center for the Study of Language and Information (CSLI), Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Civil Disobedience

51 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more. For select classroom titles, we also provide Teaching Guides with discussion and quiz questions to prompt student engagement.

Essay Analysis

Key Figures

Symbols & Motifs

Literary Devices

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

Is there a limit to Thoreau’s arguments? Logically, if everyone lived a purely individualistic life, what would happen to society? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

What acts of passive resistance have you witnessed in your life? Did they work? If not, what do you think are the best ways to effect change in your community and end injustice in the government?

Thoreau’s argument concerns the injustice of the Mexican-American War and slavery . While few would argue that slavery is ever justified, what might Thoreau say about the US Civil War, a war largely fought to abolish slavery? Is such a war justified? Does it limit the power of his argument that a war, and not passive resistance, led to the elimination of slavery?

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By Henry David Thoreau

A Plea for Captain John Brown

Henry David Thoreau

A Week on the Concord and Merrimack Rivers

Featured Collections

Essays & Speeches

View Collection

Political Science Texts

Politics & Government

Transcendentalism

This essay originally appeared in Christopher B. Gray (ed.), Philosophy of Law:  An Encyclopedia , Garland Pub. Co, 1999, II.110-113.   Copyright © 1999, Peter Suber . Civil Disobedience Peter Suber , Philosophy Department , Earlham College Civil disobedience is a form of protest in which protestors deliberately violate a law. Classically, they violate the law they are protesting, such as segregation or draft laws, but sometimes they violate other laws which they find unobjectionable, such as trespass or traffic laws. Most activists who perform civil disobedience are scrupulously non-violent, and willingly accept legal penalties. The purpose of civil disobedience can be to publicize an unjust law or a just cause; to appeal to the conscience of the public; to force negotiation with recalcitrant officials; to "clog the machine" (in Thoreau's phrase) with political prisoners; to get into court where one can challenge the constitutionality of a law; to exculpate oneself, or to put an end to one's personal complicity in the injustice which flows from obedience to unjust law —or some combination of these. While civil disobedience in a broad sense is as old as the Hebrew midwives' defiance of Pharaoh, most of the moral and legal theory surrounding it, as well as most of the instances in the street, have been inspired by Thoreau, Gandhi, and King. In this article we will focus on the moral arguments for and against its use in a democracy. Objection:   Civil disobedience cannot be justified in a democracy. Unjust laws made by a democratic legislature can be changed by a democratic legislature. The existence of lawful channels of change makes civil disobedience unnecessary. Reply:   Thoreau, who performed civil disobedience in a democracy, argued that sometimes the constitution is the problem, not the solution. Moreover, legal channels can take too long, he argued, for he was born to live, not to lobby. His individualism gave him another answer: individuals are sovereign, especially in a democracy, and the government only holds its power by delegation from free individuals. Any individual may, then, elect to stand apart from the domain of law. Martin Luther King, Jr., who also performed civil disobedience in a democracy, asks us to look more closely at the legal channels of change. If they are open in theory, but closed or unfairly obstructed in practice, then the system is not democratic in the way needed to make civil disobedience unnecessary. Other activists have pointed out that if judicial review is one of the features of American democracy which is supposed to make civil disobedience unnecessary, then it ironically subverts this goal; for to obtain standing to bring an unjust statute to court for review, often a plaintiff must be arrested for violating it. Finally, the Nuremberg principles require disobedience to national laws or orders which violate international law, an overriding duty even in (perhaps especially in) a democracy. Objection:   Even if civil disobedience is sometimes justified in a democracy, activists must first exhaust the legal channels of change and turn to disobedience only as a last resort. Reply:   Legal channels can never be "exhausted". Activists can always write another letter to their congressional delegation or to newspapers; they can always wait for another election and cast another vote. But justice delayed, King proclaimed, is justice denied. After a point, he argued, patience in fighting an injustice perpetuates the injustice, and this point had long since been passed in the 340 year struggle against segregation in America. In the tradition which justifies civil disobedience by appeal to higher law, legal niceties count for relatively little. If God trumps Caesar to justify disobedience to unjust law, then God can trump Caesar to permit this disobedience sooner rather than later. In this tradition, A.J. Muste argued that to use legal channels to fight unjust laws is to participate in an evil machine, and to disguise dissent as conformity; this in turn corrupts the activist and discourages others by leading them to underestimate the numbers of their congeners. Objection:   We must obey the law under a contract with other members of our society. We have tacitly consented to the laws by residing in the state and enjoying its benefits. Reply:   Obviously this objection can be evaded by anyone who denies the social contract theory. But surprisingly many disobedient activists affirm that theory, making this an objection they must answer. Socrates makes this objection to Crito who is encouraging him to disobey the law by escaping from prison before he is executed. Thoreau and Gandhi both reply (as part of larger, more complex replies) that those who object deeply to the injustices committed by the state can, and should, relinquish the benefits they receive from the state by living a life of voluntary simplicity and poverty; this form of sacrifice is in effect to revoke one's tacit consent to obey the law. Another of Thoreau's replies is that consent to join a society and obey its laws must always be express, and never tacit. But even for Locke, whose social contract theory introduces the term "tacit consent," the theory permits disobedience, even revolution, if the state breaches its side of the contract. A reply from the natural law tradition, used by King, is that an unjust law is not even a law, but a perversion of law (Augustine, Aquinas). Hence, consent to obey the laws does not extend to unjust laws. A reply made by many Blacks, women, and native Americans is that the duty to obey is a matter of degree; if they are not fully enfranchised members of American society, then they are not fully bound by its laws. Objection:   What if everybody did it? Civil disobedience fails Kant's universalizability test. Most critics prefer to press this objection as a slippery slope argument; the objection then has descriptive and normative versions. In the descriptive version, one predicts that the example of disobedients will be imitated, increasing lawlessness and tending toward anarchy. In the normative version, one notes that if disobedience is justified for one group whose moral beliefs condemn the law, then it is justified for any group similarly situated, which is a recipe for anarchy. The first reply, offered in seriousness by Thoreau and Gandhi, is that anarchy is not so bad an outcome. In fact, both depict anarchy as an ideal form of society. However, both are willing to put off the anarchical utopia for another day and fight in the meantime for improved laws; consequently, this strand of their thinking is often overlooked. Another reply is a variation on the first. Anarchy may be bad, but despotism is worse (Locke instead of Hobbes). If we face an iniquitous law, then we may permissibly disobey, and risk anarchy, in order to resist the tendency toward the greater evil of despotism. A.J. Muste extended this line of thinking to turn the slippery slope objection against itself. If we let the state conscript young men against their wills to fight immoral wars, then what will the state do next? For Muste, conscription puts us on a slippery slope toward despotism, and obedience would bring us to the bottom. Utilitarians observe that disobedience and obedience may both be harmful. The slippery slope objection falsely assumes that the former sort of harm always outweighs the latter. In the case of an iniquitous law, the harm of disobedience can be the lesser evil. This utilitarian reply is sometimes found to coexist with a complementary deontological reply, for example in Thoreau: one simply must not lend one's weight to an unjust cause. Ronald Dworkin replies, in effect, that the descriptive version of the argument is false and the normative version irrelevant. There is no evidence that civil disobedience, even when tolerated by legal officials, leads to an increase in lawlessness. Moreover, rights trump utility. Since (for Dworkin) there is a strong right to disobey certain kinds of unjust laws, and since the slippery slope argument points only to the disutility of disobedience, this is a case of a right in conflict with utility; hence the right to disobey must prevail. The normative version of the slippery slope argument has little force if the criteria used by activists permit some but not all disobedience. In Kant's language again, universalizability fails if the maxim of the action is "disobey a law whenever you disapprove of it," but it can succeed if instead the maxim is, "disobey when obedience would cause more harm than disobedience," or "disobey when a law is unjust in the following specific ways...." And it must be said, virtually all activists who practice civil disobedience follow criteria which endorse some, but not all, disobedience. King, for example, did not advocate indiscriminate disobedience; he advocated disobedience of unjust laws and obedience to the just. He articulated what he regarded as public, objective criteria which help us identify the unjust laws which may or must be disobeyed, and the just laws which must obeyed. Any attempt to articulate the distinction between the two sorts of law is in effect an attempt to show that the slide down the slope can be halted, or that the maxim to disobey can be universalized. King had a second reply, inspired by Gandhi: he deliberately made his example difficult to imitate. He pressed for negotiation before turning to disobedience; he underwent self-purification before every disobedient action; he accepted blows from police without retaliation; he accepted arrest and punishment. These tactical features of his actions had other purposes as well, but there is little doubt that they prevented onlookers from thinking that here was a criminal getting away with murder whose example could be imitated with profit. The counter reply, made by Waldman and Storing is that the example of the careful disobedient will be imitated by the careless, and cannot be confined, especially if activists cloak their disobedient acts in the rhetoric of righteousness. If true, this instantly makes replies to the normative version of the slippery slope objection irrelevant. Caution in stating our criteria so that normatively we stop our slide far from the bottom does nothing to prevent the example from being misinterpreted or oversimplified by the less cautious. Scrupulosity in self-purification, courage in accepting blows, and sacrifice in accepting punishment do not stop the unscrupulous from being inspired by the example of disobedience as such. One direct response, then, to the descriptive version held by Waldman and Storing comes from Rawls, who argued that civil disobedience can actually help to stabilize a community. It can be destabilizing if a very large number of people do it, but this rarely happens, and when only a few do it, it can have the beneficial and stabilizing effect of nudging a society closer to its shared vision of justice. Thoreau and Wasserstrom argue that while many in fact might be morally justified in disobeying, few in fact will actually disobey. For Thoreau and A.J. Muste, this inertia and docility in the general population are far larger problems than incipient anarchy. Sometimes activists can point to the lawlessness of their opponents as the real concern. Thoreau claimed that the only harmful consequences of civil disobedience were triggered by the government's reaction to it. King painted white segregationists as the group most likely to precipitate anarchy, since it disobeyed desegregation laws without regard to their legitimacy or justice. Moreover, an activist need not be an anarchist to welcome widespread imitation. Thoreau ardently wished that all opponents of slavery would act on their convictions. He would regard a prediction of widespread imitation of his disobedience as an inducement to act, not as an objection. At this point, critics must be careful not to use the slippery slope objection inconsistently, by predicting anarchy to those who fear it, and inert indifference to those who fear that. On the other hand, activists who welcome imitation should probably do all they can to encourage this imitation; Thoreau did nothing of this kind until he wrote his extremely influential essay two years after he was arrested for withholding his poll tax. Gandhi, Mohandas K. Satyagraha in South Africa . Trans. Valji Govindji Desai. Ahmedabad: Navajivan Publishing House, 1928. Bedau, Hugo Adam (ed.). Civil Disobedience: Theory and Practice . New York: Macmillan, 1969. Harris, Paul (ed.). Civil Disobedience . Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 1989. King, Martin Luther, Jr. "Letter From Birmingham Jail." In his Why We Can't Wait . New York: New American Library, 1964, pp. 76-95. Thoreau, Henry David. The Variorum Civil Disobedience . Ed. Walter Harding. New York: Twayne Publishers Inc., 1967

Civil Disobedience Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Beginning of the movement.

The Salt Satyagraha was one of the factors that led to the initiation of the Civil Disobedience Movement. The Dandi March was conducted by Mahatma Gandhi and his several followers to break the salt law. The Salt Satyagraha led to the extraction of salt from seawater and it was on the culmination of the Dandi March that Gandhiji announced the Civil Disobedience Movement. The announcement of this movement filled the people of India with new energy to fight for their independence.

Activities During the Movement

The sole aim of Mahatma Gandhi was to organize non-violent protests across the nation to attain the aim of Purna Swaraj. For this, several non-violent protests and activities were undertaken across the nation. The objective of the movement was to defy the British government and its laws that were imposed on Indians. Boycott of foreign goods, clothes, and liquor marked the movement and its protests.

In Bihar and other states, anti-Chowkidari tax campaigns were launched wherein villagers refused to pay any money for protection to the local guards. In Gujarat, a no-tax campaign was carried out. As per this campaign, no revenue was paid to the British government. Forest laws were also defied in many regions where the tribal population was pre-dominant. In Uttar Pradesh as well, no tax and no-rent campaigns were organized.

Martial Law

Mahatma Gandhi was arrested after the Dandi March and the people of India were outraged. There were widespread arrests across the country and the people participated in the Civil Disobedience Movement with more fervor. The British government used highly repressive measures like mass arrests, lathi charges, and police firing. However, people continued to defy the British laws by continuing strikes and therefore a martial law was imposed in the country in 1930.

The Political and Economic Policy of Mahatma Gandhi and the Reaction of the British Government

After the release, Mahatma Gandhi launched another phase of the Civil Disobedience Movement by specifying a political and economic policy. This policy stated the abolition of salt tax and reduction in land revenue by 50%. The policy also indicated the demands on the middle-class in terms of reserving coastal land for Indians and keeping a check on the rupee-sterling exchange rate. The political demands of the policy were to bring changes in the Arms Act, changes in the working of the Central Intelligence Department, prohibition of intoxicants in the country, and reduction on military expenditure.

To address the policy reforms, the British government formed the Simon Commission and convened the First Round Table Conference in the year 1930. This was boycotted by the Indian National Congress, but attended by the Muslim League, Hindu Mahasabha, and others.

However, without the participation of the Congress, the conference did not have any meaning, so the Congress was persuaded to join the Second Round Table Conference. It was made clear that the government was not interested in India’s independence and the conference met with a failure.

In 1939, the Civil Disobedience Movement was withdrawn as the government repression intensified. A resolution was passed by the leaders in India to form a constituent assembly elected by the people of India. The movement laid down the foundation for an independent India and ignited the right to freedom in every Indian.

Important Notes

• Under the leadership of Gandhiji, the Civil Disobedience Movement was launched in 1930. It began with the Dandi March.
• Gandhiji and his followers protested against the Salt Law.
• In Tamil Nadu, C Rajagopalchari led a similar march from Trichinopoly to Vedaranyam. In Gujarat, Sarojini Naidu protested in front of the salt depots. Lakhs of people including a large number of women participated actively in these protests.

Practically the whole country became involved in the movement. There were large-scale boycotts of schools, colleges, and offices. Foreign goods were burnt in bonfires. People stopped paying taxes.

Related Posts

American Revolution: Essay & Important Notes

The Liberation Struggle of Vietnam

The Idea of Satyagraha

“Causes of French Revolution” Essay

Satyagraha Movement: Essay & Important Notes

Political History of Greece

Add comment cancel reply.

• Share full article

Advertisement

Subscriber-only Newsletter

David French

The magic constitutionalism of donald trump.

By David French

Opinion Columnist

My originalist heart is troubled.

In the opening moments of Donald Trump’s argument for presidential immunity, Justice Clarence Thomas pressed Trump’s lawyer John Sauer to state the source for his sweeping argument that presidents are absolutely immune from criminal prosecution for official acts in office. Sauer’s response virtually ends his argument (or ought to). “The source of the immunity,” he said, “is principally rooted in the executive vesting clause of Article II, Section 1.”

Here is the full text of the executive vesting clause: “The executive power shall be vested in a president of the United States of America.” That’s it. That’s the whole thing. There’s no follow-on clause that says, “Therefore, the president is immune from prosecution for his official acts as president.” If that’s the textual hook for Trump’s argument, then its deficiencies should be plain.

But the justices spent more time in the hourslong oral argument last week discussing the consequences of its potential ruling than they spent on the text and structure of the Constitution. Yet a faithful originalist inquiry would settle the case, quickly, against Trump.

The Supreme Court defined the question before it quite simply: “Whether and if so to what extent does a former president enjoy presidential immunity from criminal prosecution for conduct alleged to involve official acts during his tenure in office.” The answer, applying any form of reasonable originalist analysis, is “almost never” and “certainly not in Trump’s case.” But to understand why, it’s important to dig into what originalism actually is.

In many ways, originalism is a poorly named doctrine. Properly understood, it’s focused more on the text of the document than the time of ratification. I like the way Judge Kevin Newson, a conservative judge on the 11th Circuit based in Alabama, describes both originalism and its close cousin textualism as having the same purpose: “to discern (1) the common, ordinary understanding of words on a page (2) at the time of a document’s adoption.” As a result, “the focus of any proper originalist inquiry is the document itself.” Text and context both matter, but text matters much more.

The executive vesting clause — the centerpiece of Trump’s argument — isn’t entirely meaningless to the immunity debate. After all, Congress couldn’t decide tomorrow to criminalize command of the armed forces, for example, or to criminalize the use of the veto. Such laws wouldn’t criminalize abuse of executive power; they’d eliminate the power.

A good way of thinking through the distinction between criminalizing abuses of executive power and criminalizing executive power itself is to consider a crime that was much discussed at oral argument: bribery. The power of presidential appointment is a core, enumerated executive power of the president, but he should still be subject to bribery laws if prosecutors can prove that he’s selling cabinet offices for cash.

In that circumstance, the rule established by the D.C. Circuit in its decision rejecting Trump’s immunity argument — that violating “generally applicable criminal laws” is not “properly within the scope” of the president’s “lawful discretion” — seems sound.

But that’s not the entirety of the textual analysis. The Constitution’s overall structure refutes Trump’s argument, and it’s difficult to understand the structure of the Constitution without understanding it as a small-r republican rebuke to royal authority. The American colonists had seen the danger of concentrated royal power — including royal immunities — and set about demolishing that power, comprehensively and thoroughly.

It’s doubtful that Louis XIV actually uttered the famous quote attributed to him, “L’état, c’est moi” — which roughly translates to “I am the state” — but it does accurately describe what European royal authority was like at its height. The king was the nation’s most powerful warrior, lawmaker, judge and priest. His word was law, and there was no law above his word.

In fact, the modern concept of sovereign immunity, which protects federal and state governments from suit, is rooted in the common law British concept that the king could do no wrong. The National Association of Attorneys General roots this doctrine in “the king’s position at the ‘apex of the feudal pyramid.’”

But our president isn’t at the apex of any pyramid. He may possess immense power as the nation’s chief executive, but he is not the law. He swears allegiance to the law, to the Constitution itself. And the text of that Constitution systematically strips royal prerogatives from any person and from every branch of government.

It splits the warrior function between the president and Congress. The president may command the troops, but Congress funds the military and declares war. The establishment clause removes the priest function from the government completely. No branch of government has ecclesiastical authority. It grants lawmaking power to Congress but checks it with a presidential veto. The judiciary is independent but nominated by the president and confirmed by Congress.

And when the Constitution does preserve vestiges of royal authority, it does so sparingly and explicitly. The pardon power , which grants a president immense ultimate authority over federal criminal law, for example, is a vestige of kingly power . Article I, Section 6 of the Constitution grants members of Congress limited privilege from arrest, and its speech and debate clause also protects members from suffering legal reprisals for their legislative acts . There is no corresponding provision for the president.

Trump asks us to look at a Constitution that’s silent on presidential immunity, that refuses to grant the powers and privileges of royalty to the nation’s leadership and declare that even the most heinous and brutal official acts are immune from prosecution unless the president is impeached and convicted. That’s not originalism. Nor is that an example of living constitutionalism , which holds that the Constitution’s meaning can evolve over time, a concept that conservatives deplore. It’s magical constitutionalism. And it’s intellectually bankrupt.

That brings us to the conversation about consequences. I completely understand the risks of rogue criminal prosecutions. Trump has vowed to weaponize his Department of Justice should he win office again and has promised to “appoint a real special ‘prosecutor’ to go after the most corrupt president in the history of the USA, Joe Biden.” But simply targeting the current president isn’t enough for Trump. He also promised to pursue “the entire Biden crime family.”

We should take Trump’s threats seriously, but neither those threats nor the threats of other politicians to prosecute Biden change the text or structure of the Constitution. If Americans want to provide the president with a version of the royal immunity that protected the monarchs of old, they can choose to do so through a constitutional amendment. Otherwise, presidents should remain subject to the rule of law and not simply when they’re engaged in private conduct.

Ordinarily, I would have considerable confidence that the Supreme Court — dominated as it is by originalists — would rather quickly and decisively reject Trump’s argument. The court refused to hear specious challenges to the 2020 election, and it recently largely disposed of the lunatic independent state legislature theory that MAGA lawyers were using to challenge a host of election rules. And I’m less alarmed than some other analysts by the content of the justices’ questions at oral argument. The justices often ask probing hypotheticals without disclosing their true inclinations about a case.

The concern that gives me pause is rooted not in oral argument but in the court’s recent decision in Trump v. Anderson , which held that the State of Colorado could not strike Trump from the ballot for engaging in insurrection or rebellion against the United States. The decision was much broader than necessary, holding that Section 3 of the 14th Amendment isn’t self-executing, meaning that it has no force and effect in the absence of congressional legislation.

If “the focus of any proper originalist inquiry is the document itself,” then the court’s ruling was hardly originalist. The amendment plainly states that “no person shall” hold any office under the United States if he had taken an oath “as an officer of the United States” and then engaged in insurrection or rebellion or provided aid or comfort to the enemies of the Constitution. It’s one thing to hold that this language doesn’t apply to Trump under the specific facts surrounding Jan. 6, but it’s another thing entirely to fundamentally modify the plainly self-executing language of the amendment with a new, judicially imposed condition of congressional action, a condition that does not apply to the rest of the 14th Amendment.

I don’t have any problem with the Supreme Court hearing Trump’s immunity argument. It has decided a series of other cases regarding presidential privileges and immunities, including cases about presidential civil liability for official acts, presidential immunity from civil legal process during his presidency, presidential immunity from criminal subpoenas during his presidency and the scope of Congress’s subpoena power over the president’s personal finances. Given the stakes inherent in a criminal prosecution of a former president, it would be odd for the court not to hear the case.

In that sense, I understand what Justice Neil Gorsuch meant when he said during oral argument that the Supreme Court would be writing a “rule for the ages” when it drafts its opinion. In reality, however, the Constitution has already written a “rule for the ages.” It provides no royal privileges for American presidents. It’s up to the Supreme Court to affirm the plain meaning of the words on the constitutional page.

Some other stuff I did

I’m going to try something new. I’m going to start using the end of my newsletter to highlight my other contributions to The Times, including my column, blog posts and the audio shorts I produce with the outstanding Opinion Audio team. So here’s this week’s offerings, in case you missed them.

On Sunday , I published a Sunday Opinion cover story on campus free speech, campus protests and civil disobedience. It’s long, and it includes my own experiences with three decades’ worth of campus controversy. Here’s the key paragraph:

There is profound confusion on campus right now around the distinctions among free speech, civil disobedience and lawlessness. At the same time, some schools also seem confused about their fundamental academic mission. Does the university believe it should be neutral toward campus activism — protecting it as an exercise of the students’ constitutional rights and academic freedoms but not cooperating with student activists to advance shared goals — or does it incorporate activism as part of the educational process itself, including by coordinating with the protesters and encouraging their activism?

You can read the whole thing here . It was paired with my colleague Lydia Polgreen’s column about the protests.

On Wednesday , I published a short post that tried to give some historical context to help understand the extent of Trump’s foreign policy extremism. During the Cold War, Republicans and Democrats had important differences, but they were both serious parties, led by serious people.

Republicans and Democrats are not equally serious today. In a new interview , Eric Cortellessa of Time magazine asked Trump about his pledge to let Russia “do whatever the hell they want” to countries that he believes don’t meet NATO military spending targets. Trump doubled down. “Yeah, when I said that, I said it with great meaning,” he said, “because I want them to pay. I want them to pay up. That was said as a point of negotiation. I said, Look, if you’re not going to pay, then you’re on your own. And I mean that.”

In 2024 the voters face a choice between a strategy and a temper tantrum. They should choose accordingly.

Finally, on Thursday we published an audio conversation with my colleague Sarah Wildman about the limits of student speech on campus, and I drew a sharp line between lawful protest and protest that actually limits the rights of others:

Sarah Wildman: And next fall, we may, unfortunately, still be seeing conflict in the Middle East. What’s the best-case scenario for campuses, going forward?

David French: I think that a lot of campus administrators need to read some of the statements that I have seen come out of, for example, University of Chicago, where lines are clearly drawn: We will protect free speech. We will permit all voices to protest. We will protect faculty academic freedom. But the instant that your protest violates the rights of others is when it is too far. That language has to be clearly, clearly communicated from Day 1 of the fall semester, and then the university has to walk the talk.

David French is an Opinion columnist, writing about law, culture, religion and armed conflict. He is a veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom and a former constitutional litigator. His most recent book is “Divided We Fall: America’s Secession Threat and How to Restore Our Nation .” You can follow him on Threads ( @davidfrenchjag ).