The law’s prime interest is the protection and safety of the public. Since the purpose of civil disobedience cannot be more imperative than the security of the people, no act could be justifiable if carried out in a dangerous and violent manner. If we compare the results of non-violent action and violent action, it’s apparent that the consequences of non-violence are far more favorable than that of violence. Particularly, the promotion of non-violence is less threatening to those opposed to civil disobedience, which makes for a less divided society. Exceptional disobedients such as Martin Luther King Jr. and Gandhi exemplify the ambition of non-violent action; but even so, critics of Rawls's observation still challenge the supremacy of non-violence …show more content…
Those who reject the notion that these qualities alone are definitive of civil disobedience are supporters of a more inclusive interpretation, according to which civil disobedience requires a communicative and conscientious infringement of the law committed in order to express disapproval of a law or policy, and to encourage a revisal in that law or policy. Contrary to Rawls’s view, such a conception claims that civil disobedience can be partially covert, revolutionary, and even violent. This explanation also maintains the justifiability of civil disobedience in other political contexts: it permits that an acceptable model of how civil disobedience operates may differ in a situation such as apartheid South Africa than the model that applies to liberal, a well-ordered, and just democracy. An even broader idea of civil disobedience would not distinguish definite boundaries between civil disobedience and other types of protest such as revolutionary action, conscientious objection, and forcible resistance. This conception may weaken any arguments concerning the defensibility of civil disobedience causing opponents and authorities of civil disobedience to potentially treat all forms of illegal protest with equal