Objection: Civil disobedience cannot be justified in a democracy.

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.

Civil Disobedience has existed since the ancient Greek .

Civil disobedience is a form of protest in which protestors deliberately violate a law.

Civil disobedience fails Kant's universalizability test.

Conscientious Objection: This kind of protest may beunderstood as a violation of the law motivated by the dissenter'sbelief that she is morally prohibited to follow the law because the lawis either bad or wrong, totally or in part. The conscientious objectormay believe, for example, that the general character of the law inquestion is morally wrong (as an absolute pacifist would believe ofconscription), or that the law extends to certain cases which it shouldnot cover (an orthodox Christian would regard euthanasia as murder)(Raz 1979, 263). While commonly taken to refer to pacifist objectionsto military service, conscientious objection, says Raz, may apply toany law, negative or positive, that a person believes for moral reasonsshe is compelled to disobey. A narrower conception of conscientiousobjection, described as conscientious refusal, characterises this kindof disobedience as non-compliance with a more or less direct legalinjunction or administrative order (Rawls 1971, 368). Examples wouldbe the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses to salute the flag orThoreau's refusal to pay his taxes (it is interesting that theaction of the man who coined the term ‘civil disobedience’is regarded by many as lying at the periphery of what counts as civildisobedience). Whereas conscientious refusal is undertaken with theassumption that authorities are aware of the breach of law,conscientious evasion is undertaken with the assumption that the breachof law is wholly covert. The devout person who continues to practiceher religion in secret after it has been banned does not protestagainst the law, but breaches it covertly for moral reasons. Thepersonal nature of this disobedience commands respect, as it suggestsmodesty and reflection, which more vocal and confident displays ofconviction may lack.

and John Brown's Civil Disobedience


Nonviolent challenges to state power are an honored tradition in western history, and so is their repression with origins that trace back to Socrates (Athens, Katz 1985, p .915 ;)
Civil Disobedience is first and foremost, the public expression of the politics of shame; to shine light on injustice usually we have to expose those that perpetuate it.

The Congress of Racial Equality (CORE) initiated modern nonviolent action for civil rights.

I think that civil disobedience is an expression of one's viewpoints.

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.

Free Civil Disobedience Essays and Papers - 123HelpMe

In Peter Singer's book, Practical Ethics he begins to characterize civil disobedience as arising from "ethical disagreement" and raising the question of whether "to uphold the law, even if the law protects and sanctions things we hold utterly wrong?" (Singer 292)....

Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau felt that this purely economic move by the United States expedited the Civil War, which he, and many Americans, disapproved of. In his essay, Thoreau argues that government should not be in control of the people and that the people should be able to rule themselves freely however they please. In addition, he clearly states and points out that in many instances it is best when individual rights take priority over state authority....