Evaluation of Dworkins and Habermass Approach to Civil Disobedience E

Evaluation of Dworkins and Habermass Approach to cultivated DisobedienceThe following prove result attempt to evaluate the approach taken by Dworkin and Habermas on their views of courteous disobedience. The two main pieces of literature referred to will be Dworkin?s paper on Civil Disobedience and Nu realise Protest? and Habermass paper on Civil Disobedience Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State. An outline of two Dworkins and Habermass approach will be given , come on discussion will and then focus on a reflective evaluation of these approaches. firstly though, it is worth commenting on civil disobedience in a more global context. Most would agree that civil disobedience is a vital and protected bring in of governmental communication in modern constitutional democracies and further the civil disobedience has a legitimate if informal place in the political culture of the community. Civil disobedience can basically be humiliated down into two methods, eith er intentionally violating the justice and thus incur arrest (persuasive), or using the power of the masses to make pursuit too costly to pursue (non persuasive).Dworkin takes a categorical approach to civil disobedience, by breaking it down into a number of different types then applying certain conditions to each type to assess wether the disobedience should be allowed or not. He states that there are three different types of disobedience base on the motivations behind the action. These are integrity based, justice based and constitution based civil disobedience. Briefly, integrity based disobedience is propel when the law requires people to do something that goes against their personal integrity and is usually a affair of urgency. Dworkin gives an example of this as the Northern American citizen who covertly harbours and shelters slaves from the Southern citizens in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act. The second type of disobedience, justice based, is motivated by a peoples desire to oppose unjust form _or_ system of government in the hopes of reversing the polity, for example the civilian protest about the war in Iraq recently. Thirdly, policy based disobedience is somewhat different to the first two in that it is usually activated by minority groups who think a policy is dangerously unwise. As Dworkin puts it ?they think they know what is in the majority?s own interests.? Given these three types of disobedie... ...rity is not necessarily a clear majority and also that majority decisions are quite often make under the pressures of time and lack of resources. Both Dworkin and Habermas have the same general views on civil disobedience (they both believe it is an essential form of political communication in a democratic state) but when they father to examine the issues more closely, the differences in justification begin to become seeming(a) between the two writers as outlined above. Bibliography.1. Articles/Books/ReportsRonald Dworkin, ?Civil Diso bedience and atomic Protest? in A Matter of Principle (1985) 104-16.Jrgen Habermas, ?Civil Disobedience Litmus Test for the Democratic Constitutional State? (1985) 30Berkeley Journal of Sociology 95-116.2. Other SourcesAndrew Calabrese, Virtual non- ferocity? Civil disobedience and political violence in the information age (2004) 6 Emerald Info 326 available at http//spot.colorado.edu/calabres/Calabrese%20(civl%20dis).pdfWilliam Smith, Democracy, Deliberation and Disobedience (Paper presented at the UK Association for Legal and Social doctrine Annual Conference, University of Newcastle upon Tyne, April 2003).