罗尔斯“非暴力反抗”理论中 两种义务的冲突及法律义务的优先性证明

中图分类号：D909

文献标识码： A

文章编号：2095-6916（2026）10-0128-04

The Conflict Between Two Obligations in Rawls' Theory of "Civil Disobedience" and the Justification for the Priority of Legal Obligation

Wei Desai

（School of Business Administration/ School of Marxism， China University of Petroleum-Beijing at Karamay， Karamay ）

Abstract： Civil disobedience reveals the conflict between moral obligation and legal obligation. Rawls analyzes this dilemma from both practical and theoretical dimensions. In practice， he addresses it through the principle of majority rule， yet this approach carries potential risks such as encouraging lawbreaking and undermining the constitution. Theoretically， he regards civil disobedience as a self-correcting mechanism of the law， which falls under the theory of partial compliance. Through procedural justice， he justifies the priority of legal obligation. Although the law may be imperfect， it is generally just and safeguards social order， whereas moral obligation focuses primarily on individual ethics. Therefore， legal obligation should take priority.

Keywords： Rawls; A Theory of Justice; civil disobedience; obligation

非暴力反抗是基于良知和对法律精神的尊重对某项不公正法律的抗议，它揭示了“何为正当服从、何为合理抗拒”的深层伦理，显示出道德义务与法律义务之间的尖锐对立。（剩余6840字）