Is civil disobedience justifiable?

This resource is a wikidebate, a collaborative effort to gather and organize all arguments on a given issue. It is a tool of argument analysis or pro-and-con analysis. This is not a place to defend your preferred points of view, but original arguments are allowed and welcome. See the Wikidebate guidelines for more.

Subject classification: this is a philosophy resource.

Subject classification: this is a political resource.

In times when the government makes decisions that people do not support, sometimes citizens oppose these decisions. Activist groups might occupy roads, universities, railways or even airports. Or people might oppose government policies by not following the law, for example, by wearing a burqa when it is not allowed. Is civil disobedience justifiable in some cases, or should we always obey the government?

Civil disobedience can be justifiable

Pro

• Argument for Martin Luther King Jr. once said: "One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." If the government makes unjust laws, such as laws that discriminate against or exclude people, individuals should be able to resist these laws.
  • Objection People should simply not vote for political parties or politicians who would implement such laws. People get what they ask for.
    • Objection To quote another famous figure, this time Henry David Thoreau: "Disobedience is the true foundation of liberty. The obedient must be slaves." Indeed, as he says, people who are always obedient are like slaves. What if slaves in the United States had never revolted? Then slavery might still exist today. Nowadays, slavery is prohibited. Laws can change, and sometimes civil disobedience is necessary for that to happen.
• Argument for What if people in Europe had not resisted during the Nazi regime in the 1940s? Then we would have been completely dependent on other countries that opposed Nazi Germany and invaded them. Why should other countries be allowed to take action? The very existence of international humanitarian law means that war itself would be justified in some cases; otherwise, that law wouldn't exist, and war would be entirely prohibited. Then there should also be a kind of unwritten national humanitarian law, shouldn't there?

Con

• Argument against If everyone were to resist every law they personally disagree with, a form of anarchism would emerge. That would mean the end of a free society, as everyone would take the law into their own hands.
  • Objection To quote Mahatma Gandhi: "I wish I could persuade everybody that civil disobedience is the inherent right of a citizen. He dare not give it up without ceasing to be a man. Civil disobedience is never followed by anarchy. Criminal disobedience can lead to it." Anarchy is not a result of disobedience.

See also

• Should demonstrations against COVID-19 measures have been allowed in 2020?
• Were George Floyd protests in 2020 a good thing?
• Is democracy the best form of governance?

External links

• Is civil disobedience in a democracy morally justified?, an arguments tree on Kialo