Jennifer Kling is assistant professor of philosophy and director of the Center for Legal Studies at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Her research focuses on moral and political philosophy, particularly issues in war and peace, self- and other-defense, international relations, protest, and feminism. She is the author of War Refugees: Risk, Justice, and Moral Responsibility (Lexington, 2019) as well as numerous articles in academic journals and edited collections.Megan Mitchell is associate professor of philosophy at Stonehill College in North Easton, Massachusetts, where she teaches classes in philosophy of race, feminism, and African philosophy. Her work is in political philosophy, particularly issues of race and racism. She has authored articles in Dialogue: Canadian Philosophical Review, Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Radical Philosophy Review, and Pacifism, Politics, and Feminism: Intersections and Innovations (2019).

It is often argued that political protest is legitimate only if it is non-violent, a view often attributed wrongly to Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and/or Henry David Thoreau. When some of the Black Lives Matter protests turned violent, Kling and Mitchell, like many, found themselves wondering if this could be justified. Their book explores the ethical foundations of such wondering and concludes that political violence is sometimes justified and is not always inconsistent with the principles of liberal democracy. The argument against violent acts is that they forestall the possibility of resolving conflicts through communication. The authors counter that violence—they exclude lethal violence—may sometimes be needed to assert the right of an oppressed group to enter into such communication. They ground their argument in a comprehensive survey of contemporary ethical scholarship, particularly but not exclusively by scholars influenced by the work of John Rawls. They also seek a philosophical distinction between revolutionary and non-revolutionary protest, since most people would expect states to suppress violent revolutionary protest with force. The book is conversational in tone and would foster good discussion among undergraduate philosophy students. Recommended. General readers and advanced undergraduates through faculty.

• Preface1. A Brief (Philosophical) History of Protest and LiberalismI. Common Liberal Categories of Resistance and ProtestII. Pressing the Liberal TraditionIII. Moving Forward: Reimagining Liberalism2. Bottles and Bricks: Rethinking the Prohibition against Violent ProtestI. The Conceptual Argument II. Moral Considerations III. Pragmatic Considerations3. (Re)Considering ViolenceI. An Ordinary Conception of ViolenceI.a. Subjectivity and IdeologyII. Challenging an Ordinary ConceptionII.a. Violence as a Rights ViolationII.b. Structural ViolenceII.c. Violence as a Violation of IntegrityIII. Return to Milkshaking4. Violence as Persuasive Political CommunicationI. Progressing Towards JusticeII. A Commitment to the PoliticalIII. Interpersonal Violence as Moral and Political Suasion5. Responsibility and Accountability: Permission for Violent ProtestI. The Political Responsibility to Oppose InjusticeII. The Nature of the Political Responsibility to ProtestIII. Evaluating P