Other chapters[ edit ] He who exercises government by means of his virtue may be compared to the north polar starwhich keeps its place when all the stars are rotating about it. What you do not want done to yourselfdo not do to others. The virtuous is frank and open; the non-virtuous is secretive and worrying.
The idea of civil disobedience was introduced to the modern Western political theory by David Thoreau almost years ago.
According to Rawls, civil disobedience is "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".
Civil disobedience is a temporal, public and demonstrative suspension of commonly accepted social rules and regulation under the assumption of some prior agreements in the society and in the context of everyday and usual obedience.
It is evident that this notion of civil disobedience is correlated with another basic concept which depicts democratic political order and civil society, the concept of social contract.
The theories of social contract are as old as social theories in general. The elements of such theories can be found in the ancient European philosophy since Sophists.
According to Plato a contract was the basis of relations between the Ruler and the strata within the framework of political order. In the early Modern political thought the conception of social contract was to broaden the theory of state in general.
Puffendorf, J-J Rousseau and I. Kant, social contract was not just an agreement within the framework of the existing order but the basis of legitimacy of civil community in general.
The idea of social contract as the prerequisite of the state and society was criticized by Shaftesbury and D. Kant argued that the concept of social contract was not about the origin of the state, but about the law and principle of the state as they should be. So, Nitzshe was not the first who manifested that the social contract theory had become out of date.
Who can rule, he argued, who dominates "by nature", who is violent in actions and gestures, does not care about contracts. Since the 19th century "social contract" - has been considered as a kind of philosophical metaphor.
However, this metaphor is adequate to the character of democratic organization: The concept of social contract reflects the real practice of different social, economic, political, educational and other enterprises projectswhich are mediated by agreements and juridically registered contracts between social agents which by the fact of the agreement, and registration of contract manifest their will to cooperate.
A government is as efficient as a civil society that has become a sphere of social partnership, as citizens identify themselves with instances of authority and are ready according to their competence to share social responsibility. In the 18th - 19th centuries the concept of social contract was dislocated to the periphery of social-political thought.
His theory of justice basically belonged to the contractorial tradition: According to the contractorial approach the principles of justice are the principles of cooperation between equal agents. In respect to social contract Rawls speaks about "natural duty of civility" which means not to invoke the faults of social arrangements as a too ready excuse for not complying with them not to exploit inevitable loopholes in the rules to advance our interests.
A society is hardly imagined to be fully just.
In other words, so far we cannot avoid laws which would be just for everybody, the burden of injustice should be equally distributed between different groups.The term civil disobedience means “refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by nonviolent means”, theories on this term have been around for a long time.
(American Heritage Dictionary 3rd Edition pg) People like Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. have took up and preached their own theories . Civil Disobedience - in Political Theory and Social Practice (John Rawls and Mohandas Gandhi) By Ruben G.
Apressyan. In the winter of I was kindly invited by the Institute of Gandhian Studies to take part in the International Conference on the import of Gandhi's heritage to the 21st century.
There is a sort of enthusiasm in all projectors, absolutely necessary for their affairs, which makes them proof against the most fatiguing delays, the most mortifying disappointments, the most shocking insults; and, what is severer than all, the presumptuous judgement of the ignorant upon their designs..
An account of the European Settlements in America (), pp. , in The Works of. Freedom and Development in Historical Context: A Comparison of Gandhi and Fanon’s Approaches to Liberation by Neil Howard University of Oxford Oxford, UK [email protected] Abstract his peaceful civil disobedience campaigns demonstrated a continual, symbiotic and functional relationship with the use of force.
Non-violent civil disobedience was the agenda proposed by King, beginning in , as the course of action that the African American struggle for equality should take. which the Fanon-King comparison only intensifies, but does not begin to answer. Documents Similar To Violence and Political Action:Frantz Fanon and Martin Luther King on 5/5(1).
Gandhi and Civil Disobedience Gandhi and Civil Disobedience. While in jail, Gandhi read the essay “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, a 19th-century American writer. Gandhi adopted the term “civil disobedience” to describe his strategy of non-violently refusing to cooperate with injustice, but he preferred the Sanskrit word.