Seyed Ali Mahmoudi
Abstract
Civil disobedience in John Rawls’ theory of justice is protesting actions of citizens against some unjust laws and policy making in a democratic governments. The objective of such actions is reform and change on the basis of a constitution through rational and peaceful manners. Rawls relied on civil ...
Read More
Civil disobedience in John Rawls’ theory of justice is protesting actions of citizens against some unjust laws and policy making in a democratic governments. The objective of such actions is reform and change on the basis of a constitution through rational and peaceful manners. Rawls relied on civil disobedience on the philosophical and moral foundation and, while justifying it on the basis of two principles of justice, discusses the role of this non-violent civil action. In his assessment, civil disobedience is justifiable as a legal and moral action, for this treatment confronts unjust, no efficient other lawful acts, and acceptance of some inevitable limitations. It is forming on the basis of expansion of liberties, rationality, and overlapping consensus. Hence Civil disobedience is a democratic movement and its objective is reform of some laws and structures; therefore it cannot be considered as militant actions. This research uses conceptual analysis and critical evaluation based upon analytic philosophy to explain and criticize the issue of civil disobedience in Rawls political philosophy. The outcome of this study is that Rawls’ thoughts as a means of defining and explaining the philosophical and ethical principles, as well as the precise drawing of civil disobedience boundaries from militant practices have the rational consistency and theoretical strength. Against this observation, his objective guidance and action in this regard are in some cases subject to ambiguities and shortcomings. Rawls does not follow a same method regarding such guidance.
Seyed Ali Mahmoudi
Abstract
The subject of this article is about the decision of Ban Ki-Moon, the former secretary general of the United Nations in relation to the threat of Saudi Arabia to stop all its financial support to the United Nations, if the secretary general does not remove Saudi-led Coalition from the annex I of his ...
Read More
The subject of this article is about the decision of Ban Ki-Moon, the former secretary general of the United Nations in relation to the threat of Saudi Arabia to stop all its financial support to the United Nations, if the secretary general does not remove Saudi-led Coalition from the annex I of his annual report (2016) to Security Council. In his report, the secretary general explained the fact of killing and disabling children, and military attacks to schools and hospitals in Yemen by coalition. My attempt is to evaluate the decision of the secretary general on this issue by using conceptual analysis and critical evaluation as a methodology, regarding a dilemma of the moral interference on the basis of deontological ethics. In fact the secretary general confronted a dilemma concerning two options in this regard: first removing coalition from the report and preventing Saudis to stop their support to the United Nations; second, avoidance of removing coalition and confronting execution of the threat of this country. He chose the first option. Based upon deontological ethics, in my view, assessment of the decision of secretary general indicates that although he has committed immoral deed by removing the name of coalition from the report, nevertheless through preventing Saudi Arabia from executing its threat, his decision is in conformity with deontological ethics. Conversely, measures taken by Saudi Arabia and other member states of coalition using pressure and threat against the United Nations indicate immoral behavior, in addition to their individualist acts and disintegration of these countries regarding their international obligations as the members of the United Nations.
