NestorMakhnosLovechild Posted September 11, 2015 Share Posted September 11, 2015 Civil Disobedience actually does include fully accepting legal consequences. So even supporters of her refusal to comply must accept being held in contempt as part and parcel to that civil disobedience. That is the distinction between civil disobedience and mere lawbreaking You aren't morally obligated to obey unjust laws, regardless of whether or not you're willing to submit to the legal consequences of not following them. I really don't think it's worth fighting over the precise definition of "civil disobedience" because at the end of the day it doesn't matter. If you think that civil disobedience requires, by definition, that you submit to the consequences for violating an unjust law, then civil disobedience is not the only morally justifiable way to break the law. In any case, Kim Davis surrendered herself into police custody when found in contempt of Court, so she certainly qualifies as a civil disobedient so far. Of course, it's also true that civil disobedience is not always morally justified. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.