philosopher v philosopher

Question 1

king v rawls v arendt on accepting punishment

Answer 1

• King and Rawls both believe accepting punishment as necessary to the legitimacy of civil disobedience.
• King emphasizes it as being necessary for moral witness so the illegitimacy of the laws is recognized, - Rawls believes it is necessary to preserve and respect the processes of a just system.
• Arendt does not view civil disobedience as being a moral sacrifice, but views it more as a political act of a group, and does not require punishment to be legitimate.

Question 2

delmas v fuller on when civil disobedience is allowed

Answer 2

• they define the legitimacy of a legal system differently.
• Fuller argues that a legal system must have “internal morality to law”, following his 8 principles to law to be legitimate. if a law doesn’t have these, in these cases, civil disobedience is allowed.
• Delmas challenges the idea that legality alone gives law its authority. She explains how law can be procedurally valid to Fuller’s standards, but still be unjust (ex. oppressive). She says that civil disobedience is sometimes not just morally permissible, but required in these cases.

Question 3

arendt v rawls on civil disobedience

Answer 3

• both authors have fidelity to law, but their complete view on civil disobedience is different.
• arendt views it more as a political and collective action by organized minorities
• rawls sees it as a moral, legal, and stabilizing force within a nearly just democracy.
• In short, Rawls treats civil disobedience as a moral exception within a legal system, while Arendt sees it as a political act of collective will that challenges and revitalizes democracy.

Question 4

hart v fuller v king on when civil disobedience is allowed

Answer 4

• Hart says civil disobedience is only allowed if a law does not follow structural principles. But, he says that even if a law is immoral, it is still a law and we ought to follow law.
• Fuller says that civil disobedience is allowed if a law does not follow his 8 principles to law to get “internal morality of law”. He says if a legal system lacks these, civil disobedience is justifiable as it loses its legitimacy.
• King is similar to Fuller in believing that civil disobedience is allowed if a law is immoral, but states that civil disobedience is justified when a law is immoral in its content (unjsut law vs just laws), ie it violates a human’s rights, and not just procedural.

Question 5

rawls v king

Answer 5

Both value nonviolence and public justification.

Both see civil disobedience as a way to correct injustices within a legal system—not to overthrow it.

King’s actions actually embody many of Rawls’ principles: public protest, moral reasoning, and respect for law through accepting punishment.