Can civil disobedience be considered justified at all if it doesn't allow the overall concept of violence to be justified as well?
Violence doesn't have to be physical for it to be considered dangerous, there are other types that can also be dangerous. Not to say that violence is needed to justify civil disobedience; I'm just saying the means that are often used to achieve ends in civilly disobedient situations do require some sort of coercion to a certain degree. This can be considered a type of violence as well because, it involves force and compulsion. When acts of civil disobedience are committed they see it necessary to shun violence from its category without realizing that although they may not be committing physical harm they can still be doing damage as well. If violence is at least considered to a minimal degree then civil disobedience can then be fully justified. Intimidation, strong- arm tactics and non-violent threats are all forceful acts that can be considered violent and harmful. In order for civil disobedience to be fully justified it must be looked at differently.
I think viewing the scalar nature of all kinds of violence helps justify cd as being justified, and even nonviolent. I would argue that by staying within the thresholds of physiological violence especially, certain acts can still be considered nonviolent.
ReplyDeleteI think your position would be clearer if you omitted the many "can be considered" clauses and just talked about whether CD is justified or not. Who cares what the passive voice thinks? We want to know what YOU think!
ReplyDelete