Reasonable Illegal Force: Justice and Legitimacy in a Pluralistic Liberal Society
Alec D. Walen
Rutgers School of Law, Camden
January 23, 2001
Ethics, Vol. 111, 2001
Ideally, should liberals in a pluralistic society be able to agree to abide by a common legal system such that all their disputes are resolved without resort to illegal force? Rawls believes the answer is “yes.” I explain and defend his answer, but I also conclude, focusing on the example of abortion, that the truth is “not necessarily, not always.”
Rawls’s conceptions of reasonable citizens and public reason help explain why there is a strong prima facie duty to forswear illegal force. It is based on the duty to respect others, which requires that one be able to justify one's actions to them insofar as they are reasonable and matters of basic justice are at issue. One cannot justify using illegal force to those who reasonably think a law is just; to them it is a form of disrespect. Nonetheless, if one reasonably thinks that a fundamental injustice is tolerated or even established by the law, then one may be no less reasonable than one has reason to be if one uses illegal force, sacrificing this form of respect to right a greater wrong.
Keywords: justice, legitimacy, illegal force, civility, civil disobedience, Rawls, political liberalism, reasonableness, abortionAccepted Paper Series
Date posted: January 23, 2010 ; Last revised: November 17, 2013
© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
This page was processed by apollo6 in 0.406 seconds