Civil Disobedience Is it plausible for a society or civilization to be governed by rule of law but still allow some of its members to break the law? Though the question posed may seem a bit contradictory, John Rawls and Ronald Dworkin would answer the question in the affirmative; that it is plausible for a society or civilization to do so. Dworkin says rule of law is more complex and intelligent than the idea that all breaches of law must be punished. Though Rawls doesn’t explicitly make this statement, he and Dworkin demonstrate this argument through their analysis of the concept of civil disobedience. Before I present and analyze the idea of civil disobedience in the terms of rule of law, it is important to understand what rule of law
…show more content…
For example in the U.S. , a person cannot just decide one day that he/she wants to enslave another human being just because he/she wants to; there is already a set of laws (the constitution) that clearly state that enslaving another human being is illegal. Rule of law is intended to protect the people of a civilization or society. Now that I have defined what rule of law is, I will examine why Rawls and Dworkin would argue that not all breaches of the law should result in punishment through the concept of civil disobedience. To understand Rawls understanding of civil disobedience there is a need to understand what he asserts to be the origin of civil disobedience. Firstly, Rawls presumes that the virtues of social institutions are both justice and efficiency. Here I take his meaning of social institutions to mean any form of government, family enterprise or any system that causes society as a whole flourish. He then says that we have both the natural and voluntary duty to these social arrangements. Naturally we should strive for and uphold social arrangements that are just and efficient. The voluntary duty surfaces when we actually benefit from the just and efficient systems that are set in place for us to succeed. When we decide to benefit from a system we also take on the burdens of the system. This means that we also have to do our part to make sure the system
For example in the U.S. , a person cannot just decide one day that he/she wants to enslave another human being just because he/she wants to; there is already a set of laws (the constitution) that clearly state that enslaving another human being is illegal. Rule of law is intended to protect the people of a civilization or society. Now that I have defined what rule of law is, I will examine why Rawls and Dworkin would argue that not all breaches of the law should result in punishment through the concept of civil disobedience. To understand Rawls understanding of civil disobedience there is a need to understand what he asserts to be the origin of civil disobedience. Firstly, Rawls presumes that the virtues of social institutions are both justice and efficiency. Here I take his meaning of social institutions to mean any form of government, family enterprise or any system that causes society as a whole flourish. He then says that we have both the natural and voluntary duty to these social arrangements. Naturally we should strive for and uphold social arrangements that are just and efficient. The voluntary duty surfaces when we actually benefit from the just and efficient systems that are set in place for us to succeed. When we decide to benefit from a system we also take on the burdens of the system. This means that we also have to do our part to make sure the system