Defiance psychology definition

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) - Symptoms and causes


Even the best-behaved children can be difficult and challenging at times. But if your child or teenager has a frequent and persistent pattern of anger, irritability, arguing, defiance or vindictiveness toward you and other authority figures, he or she may have oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).

As a parent, you don't have to go it alone in trying to manage a child with ODD. Doctors, mental health professionals and child development experts can help.

Behavioral treatment of ODD involves learning skills to help build positive family interactions and to manage problematic behaviors. Additional therapy, and possibly medications, may be needed to treat related mental health disorders.

Products & Services

  • Book: Mayo Clinic Guide to Raising a Healthy Child


Sometimes it's difficult to recognize the difference between a strong-willed or emotional child and one with oppositional defiant disorder. It's normal to exhibit oppositional behavior at certain stages of a child's development.

Signs of ODD generally begin during preschool years. Sometimes ODD may develop later, but almost always before the early teen years. These behaviors cause significant impairment with family, social activities, school and work.

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), published by the American Psychiatric Association, lists criteria for diagnosing ODD. The DSM-5 criteria include emotional and behavioral symptoms that last at least six months.

Angry and irritable mood:

  • Often and easily loses temper
  • Is frequently touchy and easily annoyed by others
  • Is often angry and resentful

Argumentative and defiant behavior:

  • Often argues with adults or people in authority
  • Often actively defies or refuses to comply with adults' requests or rules
  • Often deliberately annoys or upsets people
  • Often blames others for his or her mistakes or misbehavior


  • Is often spiteful or vindictive
  • Has shown spiteful or vindictive behavior at least twice in the past six months

ODD can vary in severity:

  • Mild. Symptoms occur only in one setting, such as only at home, school, work or with peers.
  • Moderate. Some symptoms occur in at least two settings.
  • Severe. Some symptoms occur in three or more settings.

For some children, symptoms may first be seen only at home, but with time extend to other settings, such as school and with friends.

When to see a doctor

Your child isn't likely to see his or her behavior as a problem. Instead, he or she will probably complain about unreasonable demands or blame others for problems. If your child shows signs that may indicate ODD or other disruptive behavior, or you're concerned about your ability to parent a challenging child, seek help from a child psychologist or a child psychiatrist with expertise in disruptive behavior problems.

Ask your primary care doctor or your child's pediatrician to refer you to the appropriate professional.

Request an Appointment at Mayo Clinic

From Mayo Clinic to your inbox

Sign up for free, and stay up to date on research advancements, health tips and current health topics, like COVID-19, plus expertise on managing health.

To provide you with the most relevant and helpful information, and understand which information is beneficial, we may combine your email and website usage information with other information we have about you. If you are a Mayo Clinic patient, this could include protected health information. If we combine this information with your protected health information, we will treat all of that information as protected health information and will only use or disclose that information as set forth in our notice of privacy practices. You may opt-out of email communications at any time by clicking on the unsubscribe link in the e-mail.


There's no known clear cause of oppositional defiant disorder. Contributing causes may be a combination of inherited and environmental factors, including:

  • Genetics — a child's natural disposition or temperament and possibly neurobiological differences in the way nerves and the brain function
  • Environment — problems with parenting that may involve a lack of supervision, inconsistent or harsh discipline, or abuse or neglect

Risk factors

Oppositional defiant disorder is a complex problem. Possible risk factors for ODD include:

  • Temperament — a child who has a temperament that includes difficulty regulating emotions, such as being highly emotionally reactive to situations or having trouble tolerating frustration
  • Parenting issues — a child who experiences abuse or neglect, harsh or inconsistent discipline, or a lack of parental supervision
  • Other family issues — a child who lives with parent or family discord or has a parent with a mental health or substance use disorder
  • Environment — oppositional and defiant behaviors can be strengthened and reinforced through attention from peers and inconsistent discipline from other authority figures, such as teachers


Children and teenagers with oppositional defiant disorder may have trouble at home with parents and siblings, in school with teachers, and at work with supervisors and other authority figures. Children with ODD may struggle to make and keep friends and relationships.

ODD may lead to problems such as:

  • Poor school and work performance
  • Antisocial behavior
  • Impulse control problems
  • Substance use disorder
  • Suicide

Many children and teens with ODD also have other mental health disorders, such as:

  • Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
  • Conduct disorder
  • Depression
  • Anxiety
  • Learning and communication disorders

Treating these other mental health disorders may help improve ODD symptoms. And it may be difficult to treat ODD if these other disorders are not evaluated and treated appropriately.


There's no guaranteed way to prevent oppositional defiant disorder. However, positive parenting and early treatment can help improve behavior and prevent the situation from getting worse. The earlier that ODD can be managed, the better.

Treatment can help restore your child's self-esteem and rebuild a positive relationship between you and your child. Your child's relationships with other important adults in his or her life — such as teachers and care providers — also will benefit from early treatment.

By Mayo Clinic Staff


Associated Procedures

Products & Services

Oppositional Defiant Disorder | Psychology Today

Reviewed by Psychology Today Staff

Oppositional defiant disorder (ODD) is a disruptive behavior disorder that emerges during childhood or adolescence and is characterized by persistent angry or irritable mood, unruly and argumentative behavior, and vindictiveness. It frequently manifests in hostility toward authority figures.

All children display defiant behavior at some point, especially when tired or stressed. Oppositional behavior is in fact normal in toddlers and in early adolescents. The behavior of a child with ODD is much more extreme and disruptive than normal, however, and occurs much more frequently than the type of childhood stubbornness and rebellion that children may display over the course of development. The oppositional behavior of ODD is not only persistent but occurs across a wide array of situations and interferes with children’s social, family, and educational life.

The condition affects about 3 percent of children and occurs more frequently in boys than girls before adolescence, but not after, according to the DSM-5. It often co-occurs with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), conduct disorder, and with anxiety and mood disorders.

  • Symptoms
  • Causes
  • Treatment


ODD is diagnosed when, on some to most days for a period lasting at least six months, a child or teenager behaves in extremely negative, hostile, and defiant ways that disrupt their home, school, and social lives. Symptoms can appear as early as three years of age. Children with ODD usually display an angry or irritable mood. Children often lose their temper, become easily annoyed, angry and resentful, and the behavior is directed at a person or persons who are not a sibling. They engage in argumentative behavior with parents, teachers, or other authority figures; deliberately annoy others; and often blame others for their misbehavior. They are spiteful and vindictive.

Children with ODD may also have problems with their peers, although, in relatively mild cases, symptoms may be confined to only one setting, typically the home. In more severe cases, the uncooperative, vindictive, and disruptive behavior occurs in multiple settings across multiple relationships. Children with the disorder often do not see themselves as angry and defiant but consider their behavior justified by the unreasonable demands of others. The irritability that ODD children display may also be associated with anxiety.

How common is ODD?

Oppositional defiant disorder is the most frequent behavioral disorder in preschoolers. The prevalence of ODD is reported to be between 1 percent and 11 percent in community samples. Some studies report 10 percent occurrence rate in the United States and 7 percent in other countries, such as Spain.

How is ODD diagnosed?

There is no one test for ODD and because the disorder often occurs with other conditions, a definitive diagnosis can be difficult to establish. The diagnosis of ODD is made after a comprehensive psychological evaluation that probes many facets of a child’s behavior to identify patterns typical of the disorder as well as to gauge the presence or absence of related conditions such as ADHD and anxiety.

Typically, clinicians use a variety of well-validated screening tools in addition to their own experienced observations of a child’s behavior and interaction patterns. Screening tools include child behavior checklists to identify behavioral, cognitive, and emotional problems and parental questionnaires and observations of a child’s behavior. Important factors include the frequency and intensity of problem behaviors, the types of settings problem behaviors occur in, the nature of family interactions, and the co-existence of other difficulties.

ODD is a serious diagnosis and is not rendered lightly. Some experts believe that diagnosis is itself harmful in that it implies that the problem resides in the child and doesn’t tell parents more than they already know—that dealing with their child is difficult. Further, it doesn’t direct attention to why a child is behaving in a disruptive manner.  “Defiant” is not merely a stigmatizing label but also carries implications of willfulness that affect parental attitudes toward a child, their willingness to focus on the problems underlying disruptive behavior, and their own receptivity to change.


The cause of ODD is unclear but a mix of biological, social, and psychological factors appears to put children at risk. These factors can include poverty (although ODD can occur in families of any economic status), experiencing a traumatic transition, having a parent with a mood, addictive, or behavioral disorder, having a bad relationship with a parent, having a neglectful or abusive parent, or a parent who is an overly harsh disciplinarian, or other family instabilities. At least one study has reported that ODD symptoms are worse in children who struggle with peer acceptance in addition to family issues. Several studies link ODD to harsh, inconsistent, or neglectful parenting practices.

Many children with ODD have coexisting conditions, most notably mood or anxiety disorders and ADHD, but also learning disorders or language disorders. Such conditions, if present, require specific treatment in addition to treating the behavioral disorder. It is necessary to determine whether a child’s poor behavior is occurring in response to a temporary situation or, as in ADHD, is limited to situations that demand sustained effort, attention, or sitting still.

What is the main cause of ODD?

Disruptive disorders of childhood are not well understood. Children do not set out to be difficult. Childhood misbehavior is a nonspecific response to many internal and external disturbances, and defiance is even appropriate at some stages of development. No single cause of ODD has been identified, and while the condition tends to run in families, no genetic patterns have been identified. Biological, social, and childrearing factors all seem to play a role in ODD.

Some research identifies two different types of ODD that may have different roots. One, more reactive, is marked by irritability, associated with internalizing conditions such as anxiety, and fueled by poor frustration tolerance and problems of emotion regulation. The other, more proactive, is most marked by argumentativeness and vindictiveness, associated with externalizing conditions such as conduct disorder, and is linked to neurobiological makeup including low heart rate and low stress reactivity, both signs of underarousal of the autonomic nervous system.

Do parenting practices play a role in ODD?

It may be most accurate to think of ODD as a consequence of the interaction of several factors. In this view, individual characteristics such as a high emotional reactivity, low emotion regulation, or difficulties in social learning collide with environmental adversities such as dysfunctional parenting style, parental psychopathology, socioeconomic difficulties, or high levels of family conflict.

Several studies identify complex behavioral patterns in which coercive interactions between young children and their caregivers amplify children’s noncompliance. Patterns of relating within the family are thought to carry over into other settings.


How can I help a child who is diagnosed with ODD?

There’s no invariable outcome for ODD, but when tackled early, conduct problems that develop early in childhood can be mitigated. ODD is a largely treatable condition. According to the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the signs and symptoms of ODD resolve within three years in approximately 67 percent of children diagnosed with the disorder.

In the absence of treatment, the disruptive behavior of ODD is linked to later behavior problems in school and adjustment difficulties in adulthood. ODD carries a risk for the development of anxiety and depression in adulthood. A small portion of children with ODD, notably those who display defiance, argumentativeness, and vindictiveness, may go on to develop frank Conduct Disorder, a more serious condition marked by aggression toward people and animals, property destruction, and deceitfulness or theft.


It is generally up to the parent to seek treatment, since the child is unlikely to understand that there is a problem. Referrals for psychological evaluation and treatment often come from a medical doctor who has performed an examination and ruled out a physical cause.

Once the diagnosis of ODD is established, a combination of therapies is generally prescribed. It typically includes behavioral and family therapies, parental training. sometimes medication. One goal of therapy is to rebuild the parent-child relationship. Another is to teach parents new techniques for dealing with the child’s behavior. The earlier treatment begins, the greater the chances of preventing ODD from developing into a more serious conduct disorder, mental health disorder, or criminal behavior.

Are there any medications for treating ODD?

There is no  medication for treatment of ODD, and medication is not recommended as an approach to treating the behavioral disorder. However, medication may be warranted for treating co-existing problems such as ADHD, anxiety, and depression, and drug treatment of those disorders, such as stimulants for ADHD or antidepressants for mood disorders, can improve symptoms of ODD. The most important treatment for ODD is psychotherapy involving parents as well as children.

What treatments work best for ODD?

The first-line treatments for ODD are psychosocial, and, while they take time, they can be highly effective. Therapy is aimed at both children and their parents. Children of school age engage in individual therapy to learn and practice skills and strategies of emotion and behavior regulation and impulse control. Therapy for parents of both preschoolers and school-age children includes learning effective parental management strategies.

In addition, family therapy is often helpful in undoing the damage done by repeated negative interactions and in supporting the establishment of new, more rewarding behavioral dynamics. Peer group therapy may be needed to address deficits in social skills. Teachers may be enlisted in some therapeutic settings.

A form of Cognitive and Behavioral Therapy (CBT) has been specifically developed for treating children with disruptive behavior. Called Collaborative and Proactive Solutions (CPS), it helps both parents and teachers engage with children in nonpunitive ways to identify and solve the problems that give rise to difficult behavior.


American Psychiatric Association. Understanding Mental Disorders: Your Guide to DSM-5. 2015. American Psychiatric Publishing.

ODD A Guide for Families by the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACP). 2009 AACAP Practice Parameter for the Assessment and Treatment of Children and Adolescents with Oppositional Defiant Disorder.

American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 

Tung I and Lee SS. Negative parenting behavior and childhood oppositional defiant disorder: Differential moderation by positive and negative peer regard. Aggressive Behavior. January 2014;40(1):79-90. First published online 5 August 2013.

Wiley Publishing  

Greene RW, Biederman J, Zerwas S, et al. Psychiatric comorbidity, family dysfunction, and social impairment in referred youth with oppositional defiant disorder. The American Journal of Psychiatry. July 2002;159(7):1214-1224.

American Journal of Psychiatry - Psychiatry Online

Smith JD, Dishion TJ, Shaw DS, Wilson MN, Winter CC, Patterson GR. Coercive family process and early-onset conduct problems from age 2 to school entry. Dev Psychopathol. 2014;26(4 pt 1):917–932.

The Explosive Child: A New Approach for Understanding and Parenting Easily Frustrated, Chronically Inflexible Children, Sixth Edition, Ross W. Greene, Ph.D., Harper Paperbacks, 2021, 272 pages

Last updated: 01/17/2022



I now wish to illustrate the content of the principles of natural duties and obligations by means of an outline of the theory of civil disobedience. As I have already pointed out, this theory is developed only for a special case of a near-just society, one that is for the most part quite orderly, but in which, however, some serious violations of justice occur. Since I suggest that an almost just state requires a democratic regime, the theory deals with the role and relevance of civil disobedience to legally established democratic authority. It does not apply to other forms of government, nor to other forms of dissent or resistance. I will not discuss this form of protest, as well as armed action and resistance, as a tactic in changing or even overthrowing an unjust and corrupt system. In this case, there are no difficulties in relation to such actions.

If any means to achieve this end is justified, then non-violent opposition is certainly justified. The problem of civil disobedience, as I will interpret it, arises only in a more or less just democratic state, for those citizens who recognize and accept the legitimacy of the constitution. The difficulty lies in the conflict of duties. At what point is the obligation to obey the laws passed by a legislative majority (or by executive acts supported by such a majority) no longer binding in view of the right to defend one's freedoms and the duty to resist injustice? This question includes the nature and limits of majority rule. For this reason, the issue of civil disobedience is the ultimate test of any theory of the moral foundations of democracy.

The constitutional theory of civil disobedience consists of three parts. First, it defines this kind of dissent and separates it from other forms of opposition to democratic authority. These forms range from legal demonstrations and violations of the law designed to set judicial precedents, to armed action and organized resistance. The theory defines the place of civil disobedience in this spectrum of possibilities. Further, it establishes the grounds for civil disobedience and the conditions under which such action is justified in a (more or less) just democratic regime.

Finally, the theory must explain the role of civil disobedience in the constitutional system and the relevance of this form of protest in a free society.

Before I proceed to consider these issues, I want to make a small warning. We should not expect too much from a theory of civil disobedience, even one that is adapted to special circumstances. Precise principles that immediately resolve real cases are out of the question.

Instead, some useful theory provides a perspective from which to approach the problem of civil disobedience; it identifies significant considerations and helps to assign the right weights to them in the most important cases. If it seems to us that such a theory helped clarify our vision and make our considered judgments more consistent, then it made sense. The theory has done what one could reasonably expect from it at this stage: namely, it has narrowed the gap between the conscious beliefs of people who accept the basic principles of a democratic society.

I will begin by defining civil disobedience as a public, non-violent, conscious political action, yet against the law, that is usually committed to change the law or government policy19. In doing so, the individual appeals to the sense of justice of the majority of the community and claims that, in accordance with his considered judgment, the principles of social cooperation between free and equal people are not respected. A preliminary note on this definition is that it does not require an act of civil disobedience to violate the same law that is being protested. The definition allows for indirect, as it is often called, and outright civil disobedience. This is what the definition should do, as there are sometimes strong arguments against breaking a law or policy that is considered unfair. Examples include breaking the rules of the road or digging into private property.

Thus, if the government passes a vague but severe law against treason, it would be inappropriate to commit treason in order to protest, and, in any case, the punishment may be much more severe than what can reasonably be expected. In other cases, it is not possible to directly violate government policy, such as in the field of foreign affairs, or policies that affect another part of the country. The second observation is that an act of civil disobedience is indeed thought to be against the law, at least in the sense that the one involved in it does not merely put the constitutional decision to the test: he is ready to oppose the law, even if it must be upheld. . Of course, in a constitutional regime, a court can side with the dissenters and declare a law or policy that is being challenged unconstitutional. There is often some uncertainty as to whether the actions of dissidents will be recognized as legal or not. But this is nothing more than a complicating element. Anyone who resorts to civil disobedience to protest against unjust laws is not ready to back down, even if the court ultimately disagrees with him.

It should also be noted that civil disobedience is a political act, not only in the sense that it is addressed to the majority holding political power, but also because it is an act governed and justified by political principles, i. e. principles of justice, which regulate the constitution and social institutions in general. The justification for civil disobedience is not appealed to the principles of personal morality or religious doctrines, although they may coincide with and reinforce the requirements of a person; and it goes without saying that civil disobedience cannot be based solely on group or personal interest. Instead, they resort to the shared concept of justice that underlies the political order. It is assumed that in a reasonably fair democratic regime there is a public conception of justice by reference to which citizens regulate their political affairs and interpret the constitution.

Repeated and deliberate violation of the basic principles of this concept over a long period of time, especially the violation of fundamental equal freedoms, calls for either submission or resistance. By taking part in civil disobedience, the minority forces the majority to decide whether to leave everything as it is, or, guided by a general sense of justice, to recognize the legitimate demands of this minority.

Another note is that civil disobedience is a public act. It is not only addressed to public principles, it is done publicly. They participate in it openly, honestly notifying about it, and not covertly. It can be compared with a public speech and, being a form of address, an expression of deep and conscious political convictions, it is performed in a public form. For this reason, among others, civil disobedience is a non-violent act. It tries to avoid violence, especially against people, not out of principled aversion to the use of force, but because that is the ultimate essence of this position. To resort to acts of violence that are certain to result in pain and suffering is incompatible with civil disobedience as a form of advocacy of a position. Indeed, any violation of other people's civil liberties tends to obscure the civil nature of this act of defiance. Sometimes, if this appeal does not serve its purpose, resistance using force may be considered. However, civil disobedience gives expression to conscious and deeply rooted beliefs, and while it may warn and exhort, it is not a threat in and of itself.

Civil disobedience is a non-violent action for another reason. It expresses disobedience to the law within the framework of loyalty to the law, although it is on the verge of it21. The law is broken, but loyalty to the law is manifested in the public and non-violent nature of this act, in the willingness to accept the legal consequences of one's behavior22. This loyalty to the law helps to convey to the majority that this act is indeed politically aware and sincere, and that its intention is to appeal to the public sense of justice. Full openness and non-violence means guaranteeing your sincerity, since it is not easy to convince another that your actions are based on beliefs, or even to be sure of this in front of yourself. It is no doubt possible to imagine a legal system in which the conscious belief that the law is unjust is accepted as a justification for civil disobedience. People of unshakable honesty, fully trusting each other, could make this system work. But in the real world, such a system would certainly be unstable, even in an almost just state. We have to pay a price to convince others that our actions have, in our carefully weighed opinion, a sufficient moral basis in the political beliefs of the community.

Civil disobedience has been defined as being between legal protest and testing of the system on the one hand, and conscientious objection and other forms of resistance on the other. In this range of possibilities, this is a form of disagreement that borders on being legal. Thus understood, civil disobedience is clearly distinct from acts of violence and obstruction; it is far removed from organized violent resistance. The one who resorts to violence is much more deeply opposed to the existing political system. He does not consider it almost fair or reasonably fair; he believes that it either deviates far from the principles he preaches, or generally adheres to an erroneous conception of justice. Although the action of a person is sincere from his point of view, he does not appeal to the sense of justice of the majority (or those who have real political power), as he believes that their sense of justice is false or ineffective. Instead, through well-organized violent acts of subversion, resistance, and the like, he tries to attack the prevailing sense of justice or force the majority to move in the desired direction. Thus, a proponent of violent actions may try to avoid punishment because he is not ready to accept the legal consequences of his violation of the law; this would not only play into the hands of the powers that he felt could not be trusted, but would also be recognition of the legitimacy of the constitution he opposes. In this sense, acts of violence are not within the bounds of loyalty to the law, but represent a deeper opposition to the legal order. The basic structure is perceived to be so unfair, or so far removed from the ideals to which it is committed, that the individual must prepare the way for radical or even revolutionary change. And this should be done by trying to raise public awareness of the need for fundamental reforms to be carried out. Of course, in certain circumstances violent acts and other forms of resistance are certainly justified. However, I will not consider these cases. As I said, I am pursuing here the limited purpose of defining the concept of civil disobedience and understanding its role in an almost just constitutional regime.

4. State and civil society Structure of civil society — 182 Bureaucracy and civil society — 184 Political parties — 185

4. State and civil society Structure of civil society — 182 Bureaucracy and civil society — 184 Political parties - 185 Closed and open societies in their relation to citizens In the previous paragraphs, we found out that the state is always in more than

Structure of civil society

Structure of civil society When attempting a structural analysis, civil society appears to us as a rather complex and specific formation in the system of this particular society. Complex - because it includes, perhaps, all the elements of

[1) Smith's two different definitions of value: Determining value by the amount of labor expended contained in a commodity, and determining it by the amount of living labor bought in exchange for this commodity]

[1) Smith's two different definitions of value: Determining value by the amount of labor expended contained in a commodity, and determining it by the amount of living labor bought in exchange for this commodity] A. Smith, like all noteworthy economists, took from


Chapter IV SOCRATES AND THE PROBLEM OF CIVIL OBEDIENCE 1. Trial of Socrates. In the course of the presentation, we repeatedly talked about the reasons and circumstances that led to the persecution of the philosopher in court. Therefore, let's start by naming those who


57. JUSTIFICATION OF CIVIL DISORDER With these many distinctions in mind, I will consider the circumstances under which civil disobedience is justified. For simplicity, I will confine myself to discussing internal institutions and thus injustices, internally


59. THE ROLE OF CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE The third purpose of the theory of civil disobedience is to explain its role in the constitutional system and its relationship with the democratic political system. As always, I assume that the society in question is in


§ 2. DEFINITION The essence and meaning of the definition In scientific and practical activities, it often becomes necessary to reveal the content of the concepts that are used in reasoning. So, in order to correctly qualify the committed crime as fraud,


RESPONSE OF FREDERICH WILHELM IV TO THE DEPUTATION OF THE CIVIL MILITIA Cologne, 18 October. Friedrich Wilhelm IV responded to Rimpler, commander of the civilian militia in Berlin, to his congratulations on the occasion of October 15: “I know that a heroic and brave people are also a loyal people.


FIRST FORECAST SCENARIO: RESTORATION OF CIVIL CONSENSUS ON THE BASIS OF THE EXCLUSION OF THE NOMAD DIASPORA When developing such a scenario, it is important not to stray into purely political "constructionism" and take into account the influence of general socio-cultural factors.


FROM THE CAMPAIGN FOR NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT TO ACTIONS OF CIVIL DISORDER From Performance 1954 and until the end of the 1950s, the general outline of Russell's reasoning and appeals remained unchanged. Advocating for disarmament and stable peace, he demanded from the governments of all countries

2. Definition of mind

2. Definition of mind The mind, according to Aristotle, is 1) the ability to distinguish objects and thereby establish them in the form of 2) eidos (visibly contemplated single generalizations of the results of this distinction), so that 3) the thinking and the thinkable turn out to be identical. Such a mind, at

The issue of civil disobedience

The issue of civil disobedience Civil disobedience can be defined as a conscious, fundamental violation of the law in protest against its injustice. Civil disobedience is peaceful, non-violent in nature. The very concept of

Contribution of the Church to the progress of Russian civil law and order[30]

Contribution of the Church to the successes of Russian civil law and order[30] The turn of the conversation with those who honored the annual holiday of our academy with their presence reached me in a year that itself persistently suggests to me the subject of this conversation. This year, following indication

56. Definition of conscientious objection

Although I delineated civil disobedience and conscientious objection, I haven't explained the last concept yet. Now it will be done. It must, however, be recognized that separate these two concepts means to give a narrower definition civil disobedience than that usually accepted; as one usually thinks about


civil disobedience in a broader sense, like any disobedience to the law beliefs, at least then, when it not covert and does not include the use of strength. Thoreau's essay is characteristic, if not defining, for its traditional values ​​ 23 . The benefit of a narrower sense, I suppose will clear up as soon as the concept of failure will be analyzed by conviction.

Refusal by conviction is disobedience more or less direct legal order or administrative order. it refusal on conviction because we the order is addressed, and the nature of the situation is such that the fact whether we submit to it or no, known to the authorities. Typical examples are failures early christians fulfill certain religious practices prescribed by pagan state, and the refusal of Jehovah's Witnesses salute the flag. Other examples are unwillingness of pacifists to serve in armed forces, or the refusal of a soldier to obey order, which, according to him opinion is clearly contrary to the moral the law of war. Or again, Thoreau's example is refusing to pay tax on the grounds that the payment of this tax will make him bearer of grave injustice in relation to others. Supposed, what actions person known to the authorities, how would he neither wanted in some cases hide them. Where it may be secret can talk about conscientious avoidance, not refusal by conviction. secretive violations of the Fugitive Slave Law are example of evasion convictions 24 .

Exists several differences between failure (or evasion) for conscience and civil defiance. First of all, denial persuasion is not a form of address, appealing to feeling majority justice. Of course, such acts are not usually are covert or covert, so how often to hide them in any case is impossible. The man is just refuses to believe obey a command or legal prescription. He is not appeals to the beliefs of the community, and in this sense conscientious objection is not a public act. Those who ready to refrain from submission, admit that they can there is no basis for mutual understanding; they don't look for cases of disobedience in order to declare about your position. They rather wait hoping that the need there will be no disobedience. They are less optimistic than those who resort to civil defiance, they may not expect changes in law or policy. The situation may not time for them to state their position, or again, there will be no chances that the majority will be susceptible to them requirements.

Refusal beliefs are not necessarily based on political principles; it may be based on religious or other principles at odds with the constitutional order. Civil disobedience is an appeal to a shared by all justice concepts, while conscientious objection can have others grounds. For example, if we assume that the early Christians justify their refusal to obey religious customs


Roman empires not for reasons of justice, but simply because it is contrary to their religious beliefs, their arguments would not be political; are the same with the same difference, and pacifist views, assuming that are at least defensive wars are recognized as a concept of justice, lying cabbage soup at the heart of the constitutional regime. Refusal by conviction, however, based on political principles. Can refuse to act in accordance with the law, assuming that he is so unfair that about obeying him just can't be out of the question. A business this would be the case if the law, say, prescribed that we should turn others into slaves, or demanded from us the subordination of a similar fate. These are obvious violations. recognized political principles.

Not easy find the right course when some people appeal to religious principles, refusing perform actions that seem to require the principles of political justice. Is a pacifist immune to military service in the event of a just war, if to assume that such wars exist? Or is it allowed for the state punish disobedience? There is a temptation to say that the law should always respect the demands of conscience, but this is not may be correct. How we have already seen in the example with intolerant people, legal order should regulate persecution people of their religious interests so as to implement the principle equal freedom; and he can certainly forbid such religious practices like human sacrifices, if you take the extreme happening. No religiosity nor the presence of convictions to defend this practice is not enough. The theory of justice must develop own point perspective on how to deal with those who disagrees with her. The goal of a well-ordered society or a company located in a state close to k justice, is to save and strengthening the institutions of justice. If any religion fail in full expression, then presumably because that such an expression would be a violation equal freedoms of others. AT in general, the degree of tolerance applied towards the opposing moral concepts depends on the degree allowing them to occupy an equal place in fair system of freedom.

If a pacifism should be treated with respect, not just show tolerance for him, this is explained that he is enough agrees well with the principles justice, and the only The exception is his attitude towards participation in a just war (if assume that in some cases defensive wars are justified). Political principles recognized community, have a certain affinity with the doctrine, preached by a pacifist. There is a general aversion to war and use of force, and also the belief in the equal status of human beings as moral personalities. And considering the inclination of nations, especially the great powers to go to war no excuses and use state apparatus for suppression disagreement, respect shown pacifism, m set

32 5

purpose warn citizens of the evil that the government tends to on their behalf. Although the views of pacifists and not fully substantiated warnings and protests they intend to express may lead to the result that balance of principles of justice will be more favorable. Pacifism like natural deviation from correct doctrine compensates the weakness of the people putting your beliefs into practice.

Necessary note that in real situations exists, of course, sharp difference between civil disobedience and refusal by conviction. Moreover, in the same same action (or sequence of actions) can there are significant elements of both.

Learn more