本文將以梭羅之「公民不服從論」至羅爾斯「正義理論（the Theory of Justice）」作交互論述區別。因此，本文除研究美國文學家亨利大衛梭羅（Henry D. Thoreau, 1817~1862）「公民不服從」思想 之激進走向，最終甚以極端廢奴主義者約翰布朗（John Brown）為師々同時間，他相對而生，極度想望之「烏托邦」政治意識卻呈漸次消失之遞演共伴長消過程，呈現梭羅如何在現實環境，堅持「個人良知」取代法律，等於是將國家政治秩序拉到最高之道德層次，梭羅既然以人人皆可為天使，這也是梭羅何以不同現代民主先驅洛克（John Locke）之法治民主與美國憲法之父麥迪遜（James Madison）謂「最好的政府是管得最少的政府」，再進一步提升至他所言之「最好的政府尌是什麼都不管的政府。」另外，美國社會政治學者約翰〃羅爾斯(John Rawls, 1921-2002)之「正義理論」（A Theory of Justice）則認為在一「接近正義」的民主社會中，人們要如何應用「公民不服從理論」追求「理想的正義社會」。羅爾斯認為，有充分理由支持的「公民不服從」行動能夠用以防止偏離正義之情況的發生々當偏離正義情況發生時，也可加以矯正々以這種方式，「公民不服從」能夠在社會中扮演一個穩定的力量。七O年代初，在美國處於政治動盪的時刻，約翰〃羅爾斯(John Rawls, 1921-2002)之「正義理論」是將「公民不服從」理論運用在現代社會發展進程中，最成功的學說範例，樹立一個新的「社會契約論」。羅爾斯定義公民不服從是非暴力的，公開的，違法的。首先是一種違法行為，拒不服從法律，這種行為的目的是要追求法律或者政策發生一種變化，致使「正義理論」成為「公民不服從」的進步理論。

This paper is to take an insight to Thoreau’s long-overlooked political thoughts, composed of the evolution of civil disobedience and utopian politics. In the “Civil Disobedience” trio, Thoreau shows a triple-stage fight against American slavery from “ non resistance”, then, moderate “peaceable revolution” to extreme “violent disobedience” at last.
With a comparative analysis on John Rawls’s “A Theory of Justice” , civil disobedience is "a public, nonviolent, conscientious yet political act contrary to law usually done with the aim of bringing about a change in the law or policies of the government" As Rawls notes, in a perfectly just democracy, civil disobedience would be out of place, but that is not the sort of society in which we actually live. Therefore an almost just or imperfectly just democratic society that aspires to be just must make provision for civil disobedience. By contrast, in an unjust and undemocratic society, more covert and clandestine forms of resistance may be undertaken and justified, as was the case with the pre-Civil War . Because such covert actions violate the publicity requirement, they do not count as acts of civil disobedience but fall instead under the heading of "conscientious refusal". To ends and means, accordingly, what Rawls pursues is a “just society” instead of a utopia and by means Rawls resorts to “a last recourse” , to the edge of violence, rather than violent disobedience.