A person believes a tax law is deeply unjust. They secretly evade paying it, deny doing so when questioned, and flee the jurisdiction if investigated. Is this civil disobedience?
AYes — the key feature of civil disobedience is that the law is genuinely unjust, not how the illegal act is performed
BNo — civil disobedience requires publicity and acceptance of legal consequences; secret evasion is lawbreaking, not civil disobedience
CYes — civil disobedience is justified whenever the cause is morally serious, regardless of method
Secret evasion fails two of the constitutive criteria: publicity (the act must be open and invite public scrutiny) and acceptance of legal consequences (the disobedient must be willing to face punishment). Thoreau refused his tax openly and wrote about it; Gandhi organized public campaigns designed to be visible. Secrecy transforms the act from a communicative political challenge into ordinary lawbreaking. The injustice of the law is a necessary but not sufficient condition — the manner of resistance matters constitutively, not just instrumentally.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Why does Rawls argue that accepting legal punishment is philosophically central to civil disobedience, not merely an unfortunate practical side effect?
ABecause courts will not take the moral claim seriously unless the disobedient has suffered
BBecause accepting punishment demonstrates sincerity and affirms the overall legitimacy of the legal system while contesting a specific unjust law
CBecause punishment ensures civil disobedience remains rare and is not used frivolously
DBecause civil disobedience that avoids punishment is legally indistinguishable from ordinary crime
Rawls argues that civil disobedience is most appropriate in a 'nearly just' society — one whose basic institutions are broadly legitimate but contain serious injustices. In such a context, accepting punishment while challenging a specific law signals two things simultaneously: that the disobedient respects the rule of law as a general institution, and that they regard the particular law as an unjust deviation from that institution's principles. MLK's 'Letter from Birmingham Jail' makes exactly this argument. Evading punishment would undermine both signals — it would look like ordinary lawbreaking rather than a principled appeal to the community's sense of justice.
Question 3 True / False
Civil disobedience is best understood as a last resort: theorists generally require that legal remedies have been exhausted or proved inadequate before illegal resistance is justified.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
True. This condition distinguishes principled civil disobedience from impatience with democratic processes. Rosa Parks refused her seat against a background of decades of failed legal advocacy, petitions, and ordinary political action. The illegal act was embedded in a long history of attempted lawful change. The condition matters because civil disobedience is not a substitution for democratic participation but an escalation within it — a signal that legal channels have failed and a more direct appeal to political conscience is necessary.
Question 4 True / False
Anyone who disagrees strongly enough with a law and breaks it is engaged in civil disobedience, regardless of whether they act openly or accept punishment.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
False. Strong moral conviction is not sufficient to constitute civil disobedience. The criteria of publicity and acceptance of legal consequences are constitutive, not optional features. Without publicity, the act cannot function as a communicative challenge to the political community. Without acceptance of punishment, the act cannot demonstrate sincerity or affirm the system's overall legitimacy. A person who breaks a law privately and evades all consequences — however just their cause — is engaging in ordinary lawbreaking, not civil disobedience in the philosophically relevant sense.
Question 5 Short Answer
Explain why accepting legal consequences is philosophically central to civil disobedience — not merely an unfortunate side effect — drawing on Rawls' argument about nearly just societies.
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Rawls argues that civil disobedience is best understood as an appeal to the sense of justice of the majority in a nearly just society — one whose basic institutions are broadly legitimate but which contains serious injustices. In this context, accepting punishment is not just a cost to be borne; it is part of the communicative act itself. It demonstrates that the disobedient is making a principled moral claim about a specific unjust law, not simply seeking personal advantage by evading it. It also affirms the overall system's legitimacy: by submitting to punishment under the law they contest, the disobedient shows they respect the rule of law as a general institution, even as they challenge a particular application of it. MLK's willingness to go to jail made the injustice of segregation more visible and more morally costly to the system — that was part of the strategy, not a byproduct of it.
The philosophical depth of this criterion is that it transforms lawbreaking into political speech. The civil disobedient communicates: 'This law is so unjust that I am willing to break it publicly and face punishment — which demonstrates how seriously I mean this claim.' An evader communicates no such thing. The acceptance of consequences is what gives civil disobedience its moral authority and its distinctive political meaning.