Rawls

Rawls had the idea of a veil of ignorance. I liked this idea because it seemed the most fair to me. The idea is that people make up the rules for society, not knowing what their role in society will be. So it's like, for example, you set up an education system, not knowing if you'll be male or female, wealthy or poor. The two questions that Rawls really brings up are:

1) What are the rules of a just society
2) When do we engage in civil disobedience

The veil of ignorance's intent is to bring about equal rights. It recognizes that the world is not fair; sometimes, everyone is going to be disadvantaged. The point is that the disadvantages aren't intentionally targeted at a specific group. There will always be mistakes made, but as long as they're truly mistakes/random, and not the products of a flawed system, you just live with them.

Rawls also makes the point that if you live in a society, and accept its benefits, then you agree to comply, in conduct, with the laws. You can disagree in principle, but you still have to act in accordance with the law. Like you can make symbolic gestures of disagreement, but you can't break the law. This is a form of social contract. I don't think Thoreau would like this very much.

I think one can use civil disobedience only when:
1)the legal means have first been tried, and not worked or been closed to change
2)there is a clear violation of justice
3)there are voiceless groups, which shouldn't be in a society that truly used the veil of ignorance
4)there is a visible pattern, or potential for such a pattern, of abuse of power

Civil disobedience needs to be public, nonviolent, contrary to the law, for the general good of the whole population and done with a willingness to suffer (you are, afterall, breaking the law).