This paper seeks to investigate and assess a particular form of relationship between the State and its citizens in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, namely that of obedience to the law and its related right of protest through civil disobedience. We do so by conducting an analysis and normative evaluation of two cases of disobedience to the law: (1) healthcare professionals refusing to attend work as a protest against unsafe working conditions, and (2) citizens who use public demonstration and deliberately ignore measures of social distancing as a way of protesting against lockdown. While different in many aspects, both are substantially similar with respect to one element: their respective protesters both rely on unlawful actions in order to bring change to a policy they consider unjust. We question the extent to which healthcare professionals may participate in civil disobedience with respect to the duty of care intrinsic to the medical profession, and the extent to which opponents of lockdown and confinement measures may reasonably engage in protests without endangering the lives and basic rights of non-dissenting citizens. Drawing on a contractualist normative framework, our analysis leads us to conclude that while both cases qualify as civil disobedience in the descriptive sense, only the case of healthcare professionals qualifies as morally justified civil disobedience.

本文旨在调查和评估在 COVID-19 大流行的背景下国家与其公民之间的一种特殊形式的关系，即遵守法律及其通过公民不服从进行抗议的相关权利。我们通过对两个违法案例进行分析和规范评估来做到这一点：(1) 医疗保健专业人员拒绝上班以抗议不安全的工作条件，以及 (2) 使用公开示威并故意无视措施的公民社交距离作为抗议封锁的一种方式。尽管在许多方面不同，但两者在一个要素上基本相似：他们各自的抗议者都依靠非法行为来改变他们认为不公正的政策。我们质疑医护人员在多大程度上可以就医疗行业固有的注意义务参与公民抗命，以及反对封锁和隔离措施的人可以在多大程度上合理地进行抗议而不危及医护人员的生命和基本权利不反对的公民。借鉴契约主义规范框架，我们的分析使我们得出结论，虽然这两种情况都符合描述意义上的公民不服从，但只有医疗保健专业人员的情况符合道德上正当的公民不服从。以及反对封锁和限制措施的人可以在多大程度上合理地参与抗议，而不会危及非异议公民的生命和基本权利。借鉴契约主义规范框架，我们的分析使我们得出结论，虽然这两种情况都符合描述意义上的公民不服从，但只有医疗保健专业人员的情况符合道德上正当的公民不服从。以及反对封锁和限制措施的人可以在多大程度上合理地参与抗议，而不会危及非异议公民的生命和基本权利。借鉴契约主义规范框架，我们的分析使我们得出结论，虽然这两种情况都符合描述意义上的公民不服从，但只有医疗保健专业人员的情况符合道德上正当的公民不服从。