Resultado de búsqueda
4 de ene. de 2007 · Civil disobedience, given its place at the boundary of fidelity to law, is said on this view to fall between legal protest, on the one hand, and conscientious refusal, uncivil disobedience, militant protest, organized forcible resistance, and revolutionary action, on the other hand.
- Terrorism
The terrorism employed by both sides in the Russian...
- Friends PDF Preview
Civil Disobedience [PDF Preview] This PDF version matches...
- Author and Citation Info
Aquí nos gustaría mostrarte una descripción, pero el sitio...
- Terrorism
4 de ene. de 2007 · On the most widely accepted account of civil disobedience, famously defended by John Rawls (1971), civil disobedience is a public, non-violent and conscientious breach of law undertaken with the aim of bringing about a change in laws or government policies.
Civil disobedience, also called passive resistance, the refusal to obey the demands or commands of a government or occupying power, without resorting to violence or active measures of opposition; its usual purpose is to force concessions from the government or occupying power.
25 de abr. de 2019 · Theorists of political obligation have long devoted special attention to civil disobedience, establishing its pride of place as an object of philosophical analysis, and as one of a short list of exceptions to an otherwise binding obligation to obey the law.
Civil disobedience and conscientious objection are social practices motivated by moral and political beliefs. Civil disobedience is often characterized as a conscientious act of illegal protest that people engage in to communicate their opposition to law or government policy.
Civil disobedience receives Rawls’s most careful and extended consideration in A Theory of Justice. It is there deined as “a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government” (TJ 320).
Civil disobedience is usually defined as pertaining to a citizen's relation to the state and its laws, as distinguished from a constitutional impasse, in which two public agencies, especially two equally sovereign branches of government, conflict.
