Rawls Civil Disobedience vs. Smart Civil Disobedience

Attribute	Rawls Civil Disobedience	Smart Civil Disobedience
Definition	Non-violent protest against unjust laws or policies	Strategic and calculated disobedience aimed at achieving specific goals
Justification	Based on principles of justice and fairness	Based on achieving the greatest good for the greatest number
Goal	To uphold principles of justice and equality	To bring about social change or reform
Means	Non-violent protest, civil disobedience	Strategic actions, targeted protests
Impact	Raises awareness, challenges unjust laws	Can lead to policy changes, societal shifts

Introduction

Civil disobedience has been a topic of much debate and discussion in political philosophy. Two prominent thinkers, John Rawls and J.J.C. Smart, have offered their own perspectives on the concept of civil disobedience. In this article, we will compare and contrast the attributes of Rawls Civil Disobedience and Smart Civil Disobedience, highlighting the key differences and similarities between their theories.

Rawls Civil Disobedience

John Rawls, a renowned political philosopher, is known for his theory of justice as fairness. In his work on civil disobedience, Rawls argues that civil disobedience is a form of political protest that is justified under certain conditions. According to Rawls, civil disobedience is a public, nonviolent, and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or government policies. Rawls emphasizes the importance of civil disobedience being carried out in a way that respects the principles of justice and the rule of law.

• Public
• Nonviolent
• Conscientious
• Respects principles of justice
• Respects rule of law

Smart Civil Disobedience

J.J.C. Smart, another influential philosopher, offers a different perspective on civil disobedience. Smart argues that civil disobedience is a strategic action that aims to achieve a specific goal, rather than being motivated by a sense of justice or duty. According to Smart, civil disobedience is a tool that can be used to bring about social change, even if it involves breaking the law. Smart's theory of civil disobedience focuses on the effectiveness of the action in achieving its intended outcome, rather than the moral or ethical justifications for the act.

• Strategic
• Aims to achieve specific goal
• Focuses on effectiveness
• May involve breaking the law
• Outcome-oriented

Comparison

When comparing Rawls Civil Disobedience and Smart Civil Disobedience, it is clear that there are significant differences in their approaches to the concept. Rawls emphasizes the moral and ethical justifications for civil disobedience, focusing on the principles of justice and the rule of law. In contrast, Smart's theory is more pragmatic and outcome-oriented, focusing on the effectiveness of the action in achieving its intended goal.

While Rawls argues that civil disobedience should be carried out in a public, nonviolent, and conscientious manner, Smart's theory allows for a broader range of tactics, including actions that may involve breaking the law. Rawls' emphasis on the principles of justice and the rule of law sets a higher standard for civil disobedience, requiring that it be carried out in a way that respects these principles.

On the other hand, Smart's theory is more flexible and allows for a wider range of actions to be considered as civil disobedience, as long as they are effective in achieving their intended goal. Smart's focus on the strategic use of civil disobedience as a tool for social change highlights the pragmatic nature of his theory, which prioritizes the outcome of the action over the means used to achieve it.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the theories of Rawls Civil Disobedience and Smart Civil Disobedience offer contrasting perspectives on the concept of civil disobedience. While Rawls emphasizes the moral and ethical justifications for civil disobedience, focusing on the principles of justice and the rule of law, Smart's theory is more pragmatic and outcome-oriented, focusing on the effectiveness of the action in achieving its intended goal. Both theories have their strengths and weaknesses, and the debate over the nature and justification of civil disobedience continues to be a topic of interest in political philosophy.