What Is Civil Disobedience?

Question

What is civil disobedience, and why is it a central concept in the philosophy of law and justice? The question arises because civil disobedience is the point at which the duty to obey the law and the duty to justice conflict.

Quick Answer

Civil disobedience is a deliberate, public, non-violent violation of law that is undertaken to protest an unjust law or policy. The person who engages in civil disobedience breaks the law openly, accepts the legal consequences, and appeals to the community's sense of justice. The goal is not to escape punishment but to persuade the community that the law is unjust. Civil disobedience is distinct from revolutionary action (which seeks to overthrow the entire political system), from ordinary lawbreaking (which is done for private gain), and from conscientious objection (which is a private refusal to comply with a law on moral grounds).

Historical Wisdom

Henry David Thoreau's essay 'Civil Disobedience' (originally titled 'Resistance to Civil Government,' 1849) is the founding text. Thoreau refused to pay taxes that supported the Mexican-American War and slavery. He argued that individuals have a moral duty to resist unjust laws and that the best government is the one that governs least.

Mahatma Gandhi transformed civil disobedience into a mass political strategy. His concept of satyagraha — truth-force or soul-force — was a non-violent method of political resistance based on the power of truth and the willingness to suffer for justice. Gandhi's salt march (1930) is one of the most famous acts of civil disobedience in history.

Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail (1963) is the most powerful defense of civil disobedience in the American tradition. King argued that there are two types of laws: just laws, which we have a moral duty to obey, and unjust laws, which we have a moral duty to resist. 'One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws,' King wrote. He argued that non-violent direct action creates a tension that forces the community to confront injustice.

Philosophical Perspectives

John Rawls's A Theory of Justice (1971) provides the most systematic philosophical theory of civil disobedience. Rawls defines civil disobedience as 'a public, non-violent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government.' For Rawls, civil disobedience is addressed to the sense of justice of the majority and is justified only when the normal channels of political change have been exhausted.

Hannah Arendt's essay 'Civil Disobedience' (1972) offers a different perspective. Arendt argues that civil disobedience is a political act that challenges the legitimacy of a law or policy. She distinguishes it from conscientious objection, which is a private moral act. For Arendt, civil disobedience is a form of voluntary association that is essential to the health of a democratic society.

Lessons From Thinkers

From Thoreau: individuals have a moral duty to resist unjust laws. From Gandhi: non-violent resistance is a powerful force for social change. From King: there is a moral duty to disobey unjust laws, and non-violent direct action is a way of creating the tension necessary for social change. From Rawls: civil disobedience is justified when normal political channels have been exhausted and the law is clearly unjust. From Arendt: civil disobedience is a political act that is essential to democratic life.

Practical Application

Civil disobedience has been a central strategy of social movements around the world, from the civil rights movement in the United States to the anti-apartheid movement in South Africa to the pro-democracy movements in Eastern Europe and Asia. The philosophical question — what is civil disobedience? — is a practical question about when and how it is legitimate to break the law in the name of justice.