Threefold Theory Of Civil Disobedience

Responding to Donald Trump’s inaugural address, socialist activist Kshama Sawant condemned the compromising tactics of establishment liberalism, instead demanding “mass non-violent civil disobedience” to defeat Trump, including the use of such drastic means as shutting down highways and halting “business as usual.” This radical plea raises an increasingly relevant question—may apparently unjust actions of a lawful civil government be resisted, and if so, on what basis? Can civil disobedience positively impact a free society, or will it lead to sheer anarchy and confusion?

When considering the impact of civil disobedience upon society, we must avoid the temptation to assess the mere pragmatic results of civil disobedience. While this approach may seem intuitive, it is quite inadequate because it assumes that the moral justification for civil disobedience is at least partially a function of whether positive results ensue. Accordingly, I propose that we consider civil disobedience within a comprehensive theoretical context, through which we may evaluate the moral validity of civil disobedience itself. From the premise that morality benefits society, if we can establish that civil disobedience is morally right, then it follows that civil disobedience benefits society.

Every discussion of civil disobedience must be informed by a theory of civil …show more content…
First, when the civil government acts within its delegated authority as defined by Scripture or the Constitution, we are morally bound to obey. Note that this principle excludes the idea that a citizen may protest against the civil government by arbitrarily rebelling against its authority. Thus, Sawant’s anarchical stance ought to be reprehensible in a free society, as it defies the legitimate authority of civil government. Civil disobedience must therefore be directed only at a particular unjust law or