top of page
  • Writer's pictureawashyapartners

A Comparative Analysis: Rawls vs. Thoreau on Civil Disobedience

In the realm of political philosophy, the concept of civil disobedience has been a topic of extensive debate and discussion. It involves the deliberate violation of certain laws or regulations by individuals or groups to challenge the morality or legitimacy of those laws. Two prominent thinkers who have offered profound insights into this subject are John Rawls and Henry David Thoreau. In this article, we will embark on a comparative journey through the perspectives of these two influential philosophers, shedding light on their differing views on civil disobedience.

Rawls' Theory of Civil Disobedience

Background: John Rawls, a 20th-century American philosopher, is renowned for his work on justice and political theory. His theory of civil disobedience is deeply rooted in his broader philosophy of justice, particularly as outlined in his seminal work, "A Theory of Justice."

Principles of Civil Disobedience: Rawls argued that civil disobedience should adhere to certain principles to be considered morally justifiable:

  1. Conscientious Objection: Civil disobedience should arise from a deep sense of moral conscience. It should be driven by the belief that a particular law or policy is fundamentally unjust.

  2. Public, Nonviolent Protest: Rawls emphasized the importance of civil disobedience being conducted in a public, nonviolent manner. Disobedients should make their dissent known openly without resorting to violence.

  3. Acceptance of Legal Penalties: Those engaging in civil disobedience should be willing to accept the legal consequences of their actions, demonstrating respect for the rule of law.

  4. Targeted Disobedience: Rawls argued that civil disobedience should be directed specifically at the unjust law or policy in question, rather than challenging the entire legal system.

Role of Civil Disobedience in Rawls' Theory: For Rawls, civil disobedience plays a crucial role in a just society. It acts as a "safety valve" for citizens to express their dissent when faced with unjust laws, helping to refine and improve the justice system over time.

Thoreau's Perspective on Civil Disobedience

Background: Henry David Thoreau, a 19th-century transcendentalist philosopher, is perhaps best known for his essay, "Civil Disobedience." Thoreau's views on civil disobedience were heavily influenced by his own experiences, including his brief imprisonment for refusing to pay taxes in protest of slavery and the Mexican-American War.

Principles of Civil Disobedience: Thoreau's perspective on civil disobedience can be summarized by the following key principles:

  1. Individual Conscience: Thoreau believed that an individual's conscience and moral judgment should guide their actions. He famously stated, "Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?"

  2. Noncooperation with Unjust Laws: Thoreau advocated for noncooperation with laws he considered unjust. He argued that citizens should be willing to accept the consequences of their disobedience to make a moral stand.

  3. Minimal Government: Thoreau had a deep skepticism of government and believed in minimal government interference in the lives of individuals. He saw government as often perpetuating injustice.

Role of Civil Disobedience in Thoreau's Perspective: Thoreau viewed civil disobedience as a means for individuals to resist government actions that violated their moral principles. He believed it was a way for citizens to assert their autonomy and conscience against unjust authority.

A Comparative Analysis


  1. Conception of Justice: Rawls' theory is deeply rooted in a comprehensive theory of justice that seeks to reconcile individual rights and societal welfare. In contrast, Thoreau's perspective is more focused on individual conscience and resistance to perceived injustice.

  2. Acceptance of Legal Consequences: While both Rawls and Thoreau acknowledge the need to accept legal penalties for civil disobedience, Rawls places greater emphasis on this aspect, considering it a hallmark of morally justifiable disobedience.

  3. Engagement with the Legal System: Rawls' theory suggests that civil disobedience should operate within the framework of the legal system to effect change, while Thoreau's perspective is more skeptical of the legal system itself.


  1. Nonviolence: Both Rawls and Thoreau advocate for nonviolent civil disobedience as a means of protest. They reject the use of force in challenging unjust laws.

  2. Moral Conscience: Both philosophers stress the importance of moral conscience as the driving force behind civil disobedience. Disobedience should be grounded in a deep belief in the injustice of the laws being challenged.

In conclusion, John Rawls and Henry David Thoreau offer distinct yet thought-provoking perspectives on civil disobedience. Rawls' theory places civil disobedience within the broader context of a just society, emphasizing the importance of legal and nonviolent protest. Thoreau, on the other hand, champions individual conscience and noncooperation with unjust laws as the core principles of civil disobedience. Understanding these differing viewpoints enriches our appreciation of the complexities surrounding this important aspect of political philosophy.

53 views0 comments


bottom of page