JUSTIFYING CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE

- in plato's 'crito' -> socrates: breaking the law is NEVER justified even if the state treats you bad -> obligation to obey under any circumstance bc of the benefits the law provides -> living under the state = agreeing to obey (tacit consent)

- rawls, CD is justified under certain conditions:
1) when all legal attempts to make change have failed SO CD is last resort HOWEVER -> who decides when all legal attempts have been justified? who decides when to stop campaigning?
2) if it is non-violent -> violence is never justified as it increases overall threat for citizens -> HOWEVER -> use of violence should be considered case-by-case -> surely it can sometimes be necessary (and therefore justified) under unjust states e.g. french citizens resisting against the nazi's in WW2

ronald dworkin:
- we have a right to civil disobedience when the law wrongly violates our other rights (e.g. human rights, for example the right to choose my own religion)
- however, we don't have a GENERAL right to CD -> needs to be considered case-by-case + cases need to be exceptional
- we DO have the right to dissent legally (bc consent is the basis of political obligation)
- if the state fails to protect this right + our others, then CD is justified

need to consider:
1) consequences:
- because CD can cause harm to society (e.g. encourage further disrespect for the law, create conflict amongst opposing sides on an issue)
- aim must have a REALISTIC chance of being achieved, otherwise the potential negative effects of CD outweigh the act itself
HOWEVER- can avoid negative consequences by:
- being willing to submit to punishment - shows respect for the law -> minimises further disrespect -> also shows genuinely believe in the issue they are righting for -> may increase respect from opposer's and thus decrease any hostility/conflict

2) motivation:
- RAWLS- must be a clear + substantial injustice to motivate CD -> only something v serious could justify breaking the law
HOWEVER, could argue that even things that aren't considered to be major societal issues should still be protested if people believe in them - for example, parents illegally blocking a road to protest getting a crossing installed for their children -> SO it's arguably more important that the act is proportional to the end, rather than the act being considered socially significant
- MILL - we should be GRATEFUL for protesters -> help us think for ourselves + change is good if it's in the right direction -> healthy for politics
- rather than think protesters are annoying/irritating -> appreciate their contribution for change in society -> can be beneficial -> after-all change is how we progress as a society and no great change has ever been achieved by sticking to the status quo