\documentstyle[doublespace,fullpage]{article}
\title{Philosophy and Public Affairs, Paper \#7}
\author{Greg Hudson}
\begin{document}
\maketitle
\begin{center}
Thesis: Rawls gives a convincing account of a meaningful distinction
between civil disobedience and lawlessness: the former is a political
act with the intent of reforming society, while the latter shows
disregard for society's rules and benefit.  Rawls must make this
distinction in order to claim that civil disobedience has a
justifiably role within society.
\end{center}
\bigskip
In this paper, I will analyze the distinction Rawls makes between
conscientious civil disobedience and lawlessness, and the reason for
this distinction in the context of Rawls' theory.  By ``lawlessness,''
I mean doing what one pleases without regard for the law.  I will
argue that Rawls' makes the distinction between civil disobedience and
lawlessness convincingly.

To decide conscientiously to engage in civil disobedience, according
to Rawls, involves carefully considering the benefit of society.
First, one must determine that the wrong in question is a serious
infringement of the the principle of equal liberty or a blatant
violation of the principle of fair equality of
opportunity\footnote{John Rawls, {\em A Theory of Justice}.  Harvard
University Press.  Cambridge, MA.  1971.  p. 372.}.  Second, one must
determine that ``The legal means of redress have proved of no
avail.''\footnote{Rawls, p. 373}  Third, one must consider whether in
the current circumstances ``the natural duty of justice may require a
certain restraint,''\footnote{Rawls, p. 373} such as when other groups
are also engaging in civil disobedience and diverting the attention
and resources of society.

These conditions apply because Rawls defines civil disobedience as a
``public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law
usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or
policies of the government''\footnote{Rawls, p. 364}.  Thus the
requirement that its practitioners do it for the benefit of society
and not out of self-interest.  We can usually observe that the
requirements of the definition have been met by the openness of civil
disobedience and the willingness of its practitioners to accept the
legal consequences of their conduct.

Lawlessness, on the other hand, has no such requirement.  Its
motivation may very well be self-interest, and it may be done without
taking into account any of the considerations outlined above.  It need
not be conscientious at all.

Rawls must make a distinction between civil disobedience and
lawlessness because he makes the claim that civil disobedience plays a
legitimate role inside society.  Lawlessness cannot play a legitimate
role within the structure of a society, because it directly ignores to
the legal system which is part of the makeup of a society (assuming
the society is not an anarchy).  Although practicing civil
disobedience involves breaking the law, it does not mean disregarding
the law or the benefit of society.  Thus civil disobedience can play a
role as a reformative element within the structure of society.  This
is the crucial difference.

Rawls' account of the difference between civil disobedience and
lawlessness is convincing, and it succeeds in its purpose of allowing
civil disobedience to be justifiable as an integral part of society.
He shows how civil disobedience does not disregard the law and the
benefit of society, and how it is done for the purpose of reforming
society.  As a reformative gesture, civil disobedience can play a
justifiable role in society, while lawlessness cannot.

\end{document}


\end{document}
