Since then, the question has frequently emerged whether or not civil disobedience was justified.
As many people may see it, an analysis of the probability of civil disobedience must take into consideration not only the dissident's certain action and its likely outcome, but also their inspiration for partaking in this act of civil disobedience. As indicated by the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "Factors relevant to a disobedient choice of action include: its illegality, its use as a last resort or first resort, any coordination with other dissidents, the likelihood of success, the directness or indirectness of the action, and the expected harm." Elements apropos to motivation may include: the caliber or absence thereof in the dissident's purpose, their basis for defending that cause, and their cause for being involved in this form of protest. Even though their motivation and justification is evaluated separately, these two factors unavoidably overlap.On this perspective, civil disobedience can be supported just when utilized if all else fails. Rawls suggests that, if past actions have shown the majority to be immovable or apathetic, then further endeavors might sensibly be thought unbeneficial and one might be confident one's civil disobedience is a final resort. Another condition for civil disobedience to be legitimized, according to Rawls, is that disobedience coordinate with different minorities. Since minority gatherings are similarly defended in turning to civil disobedience when they have adequately profound protests, these gatherings ought to abstain from undermining each other's' endeavors through synchronous speaks to the consideration of society and government. Some coordination of exercises is required, says Rawls, to control the general level of contradiction (Rawls, '71). It is regularly contended that civil disobedience must be advocated if there is a high likelihood of delivering positive change through that disobedience.
