What is the difference between conscientious objection and civil disobedience.

Both conscientious objection and civil disobedience is motivated by sincere views about what is morally right. However, conscientious objectors usually do not have the desire to change the law, they are simply seeking to not participate in something, for example, a pacifist may object to participating in a war, but doesn't necessarily object to anybody else participating. Whereas civil disobedience usually arises from a concern about what is best for society and thus seek to change some law or policy, usually publicly. Thus, conscientious objectors don't necessarily try to publicise their actions, whereas acts of civil disobedience always has this political aim.


Outline and illustrate the spectrum of expression of dissent. 

At one end of the spectrum there's legal direct action, for example, boycotts and protest rallies. Then there is civil disobedience, which includes cases that fit into Rawls' restrictive definition, and then cases that don't fit into this definition. Next, on the border between civil disobedience and revolution there are cases which don't aim at changing specific law or laws, but the whole structure of the state - for example, Gandhi's protest against the British Raj. Then, at the other end of the spectrum, there are cases of direct action and revolutionary action that don't aim to bring about change in a peaceful manner, but through violence and intimidation.


Explain Rawls' justification of civil disobedience.

In Plato's Crito, Socrates argues that it's never right to break the law, even if it treats you wrongly. This is because we are obliged to obey the law in order to receive all of the benefits it provides. He also suggests that by simply living under the state we have agreed to abide by its laws.

Rawls, however, objects that under certain conditions, if the aim of an act of civil disobedience is important enough, then the act can be justified. One of the conditions being that all legal attempts to change the law have failed i.e. civil obedience must be a 'last resort'. The second condition must be that the civil disobedience is non-violent - this is because the most important thing that the law protects, according to Rawls, is our safety, so to threaten our protection is unjustifiable, because the aim of civil disobedience cannot ultimately outweigh the importance of our protection. Furthermore, the consequences of non-violence are likely to be much better than the consequences of violence, for example, using violence in certain present situations may encourage further violence in other future situations. Therefore, according to Rawls, non-violence is the better, more rational option.


Discuss whether civil disobedience must be non-violent to be justified.

Rawls argued that, in regards to civil disobedience, violence cannot be justified because ultimately the most important thing the law protects is our safety, and by using violence we would be jeopardising this protection. However, it's important to consider whether the consequences of an action can be justified by its aim. Sometimes the consequences of non-violence can be just as bad as violence itself, for example, ambulance drivers going on strike. Furthermore, sometimes limited direct violence may be more effective than non-violence, for instance, when civil obedience occurs in an unjust state.

(AO3?) Therefore, it is irrational to use violence and non-violence in black and white terms without considering the context they are in, and it's more effective to evaluate the greater-good that can come out of a situation, rather than following specific guidelines.