Philosophy
The Concept of Civil Disobedience in Rawls and Thoreau
Quick fact
Henry David Thoreau's 1849 essay 'Civil Disobedience' was inspired by his refusal to pay a poll tax in protest against slavery and the Mexican-American War. He spent a night in jail, and his ideas later influenced Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
Why this is interesting
Have you ever wondered whether breaking the law can be morally justifiable in a democracy? Civil disobedience is the surprising answer that many philosophers and activists have defended.
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Concept of Civil Disobedience in Rawls and Thoreau
Imagine you live in a society that is mostly fair, but one law seems deeply wrong to you. You face a conflict: obey the law and feel complicit, or break it and risk punishment. Civil disobedience is a deliberate, public, and nonviolent act of law-breaking aimed at changing that law or policy. It is not self-interest; it appeals to the community's shared sense of right and wrong. Henry David Thoreau, writing in 1849, saw it as a personal moral duty: when the law asks you to be an agent of injustice, your conscience is the highest authority. John Rawls, writing a century later, formalized it. For him, civil disobedience is a political act, performed in public, that addresses the majority's sense of justice. It is a tool to test whether a law really fits with the founding principles of a democratic society.
A deeper explanation
Rawls argues that in a 'nearly just' society—one that respects basic liberties and offers fair equality of opportunity—citizens have a duty to obey the law because of the principle of fairness. However, this duty is not absolute. Civil disobedience is justified when there is a serious infringement of the principle of equal liberty or fair equality of opportunity. It must be nonviolent, because violence would break the bonds of community and destroy the very sense of justice it appeals to. It must be public, so that its aim is clearly to communicate with the majority. And it must be done with the willingness to accept the legal consequences, which shows that the disobedient is not rejecting the rule of law but rather highlighting a specific injustice. Thoreau's view is more individualistic: he refused to pay a tax because he believed that conscience should be the ultimate guide, even if it meant going to jail. Whereas Rawls sees civil disobedience as a collective, political strategy within a democratic framework, Thoreau sees it as a personal moral protest, often directed at unjust state actions. Both, however, share a deep respect for the law and for nonviolence. They see civil disobedience as a form of communication, not a revolutionary act. The underlying mechanism is the appeal to the community's moral sensibilities, aiming to create a dialogue that leads to legal change without destroying the social fabric.