Civil Disobedience and Personal Responsibility for Injustice (From Civil Disobedience, P 183-199, 1989, Paul Harris, ed. -- See NCJ-121683)

• NCJ Number: 121691
• Author(s): H A Bedau
• Date Published: 1989
• Length: 17 pages
• Sale Source: University Press of America
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America
• Note: Revised version of a paper prepared for the Conference of the Rights and Responsibilities of States, Citizens, and Persons, Kalamazoo, Michigan, October 27-28, 1968.

Annotation

This analysis of civil disobedience focuses on its purposes and distinguishes between direct resistance designed to prevent the operation of a law or policy regarded as unjust and indirect resistance designed to protest the operation of a law or policy.

Abstract

Indirect action is justified on the grounds that some injustices are inaccessible to direct resistance by those who would protest them and is taken by people who are neither victims nor agents of the injustice. Fortas and Griswold oppose all acts of indirect civil disobedience, arguing that only those directly involved in injustice should protest it. In contrast, Thoreau's principle supports indirect civil disobedience. However, this principle does not by itself justify indirect civil disobedience. In addition, not all indirect resistance is justified. Although the distinctions between direct and indirect civil disobedience and between protesting and obstructing justice are important distinctions, they should not be the main basis on which to analyze the issues relating to civil disobedience. 20 reference notes.