A group of activists illegally occupies a government building to protest a policy they consider unjust, then flees when police arrive to avoid arrest. Which element of civil disobedience, as classically defined, is missing from their action?
ANonviolence — their occupation could be construed as a use of force
BPublicity — covert occupation does not communicate the protest
CAcceptance of legal consequences — fleeing subverts the communicative function of submitting to arrest
DA conscientious motive — their political goal disqualifies them
Accepting legal punishment distinguishes civil disobedience from ordinary evasion. By submitting to arrest, the dissenter signals fidelity to the rule of law while challenging a specific unjust application of it — a communicative act that exposes the moral incoherence of the system prosecuting them. Fleeing undermines this entirely. The action is still public and nonviolent, so options A and B are wrong. Option D is a misconception — conscientious political motivation is exactly what qualifies the act.
Question 2 Multiple Choice
Rawls argues that civil disobedience is justified only within a 'nearly just' society. Why does this qualifier matter?
AIn a nearly just society, protests are more likely to receive media coverage
BIn a fully just society there are no grounds for disobedience; in a thoroughly unjust one, revolution rather than civil disobedience may be warranted — the qualifier defines the context where the practice makes sense
CNearly just societies have more lenient sentencing, making acceptance of punishment less costly
DRawls thought civil disobedience was only appropriate where legal channels had never been tried
The 'nearly just' qualifier is philosophically essential. In a fully just society, no law would merit disobedience. In a thoroughly tyrannical one, the dissenter's appeal to a shared sense of justice — which civil disobedience presupposes — would be incoherent; armed resistance might be more appropriate. Rawls's framework specifically addresses constitutional democracies that have imperfectly implemented justice, where citizens share enough common ground for a conscientious appeal to have moral force.
Question 3 True / False
Civil disobedience, as defined by Rawls and exemplified by King, is distinguished from ordinary nonviolent protest primarily by its reliance on persuasion rather than lawbreaking.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: False
The defining feature of civil disobedience is deliberate lawbreaking — it necessarily involves violating a law or authoritative command. Ordinary nonviolent protest (demonstrations, marches, letter-writing) does not involve lawbreaking and is therefore not civil disobedience. Persuasion is a goal of both, but the intentional violation of law — combined with public acknowledgment and acceptance of consequences — is what makes civil disobedience philosophically distinctive.
Question 4 True / False
Accepting legal punishment during civil disobedience is not passive submission but a communicative act that demonstrates fidelity to the rule of law while challenging a specific unjust application of it.
TTrue
FFalse
Answer: True
This is the key insight about the acceptance-of-punishment requirement. King's willingness to be jailed exposed the moral incoherence of a system that could arrest someone for demanding basic rights. By not fleeing, the dissenter signals: 'I am not a criminal who rejects law altogether; I am a citizen who finds this particular law unjust and appeals to your conscience.' The act acknowledges the authority of law in general while contesting a specific instance — a move that mere evasion cannot accomplish.
Question 5 Short Answer
Why must civil disobedience be public rather than covert, and what philosophical work does the publicity requirement do?
Think about your answer, then reveal below.
Model answer: Publicity distinguishes civil disobedience from evasion or ordinary crime. The act is addressed to the conscience of the majority within a constitutional framework, appealing to shared principles of justice. A covert violation communicates nothing except the desire to avoid legal consequences; it cannot serve as a moral appeal. Publicity is also what makes accepting punishment coherent: you submit to arrest precisely because you have acted openly and want your principled challenge to be judged by the community whose laws you are contesting.
Thoreau evaded his tax obligation quietly; King organized public marches and accepted imprisonment in full view. The difference is philosophical, not merely strategic. Civil disobedience says: 'I am bound by your law in general but find this instance unjust, and I appeal to your moral judgment.' That appeal requires an audience and requires that the dissenter stand visibly behind their act. Without publicity, there is no appeal — only illegal behavior.