Civil Disobedience

[AltF4]

If you believe a law to be immoral, is it justifiable to disobey it?


I'm going to take the positive stance on this issue and argue that absolutely yes. If you believe that a law is immoral, it is not only justifiable to disobey it, but in fact you should be morally obligated to disobey it. I would expect nothing less of responsible citizens to take matters into their own hands.

The government is subject to systematic corruption. And when every branch of government is just as corrupt as the others, the only check and balance is the American people.

In order for progressive change to truly be made, civil disobedience must occur. This is how the entire civil rights movement began. By ordinary citizens.


You probably don't have to do a whole lot of searching to find out that I greatly oppose copyright law. And the current trend seems to only be to further this corrupted agenda. And I openly encourage everyone I discuss with this about to break copyright law. And do so openly.

But this thread isn't specifically about that. But rather when (or if at all) is is justifiable to intentionally break laws because you don't agree with them? And if so what kinds of laws? Or should the alternative solely be to try to change the law, and now break it while it is the law?

 

[manhunter098]

I think that the definition of civil disobedience necessitates that the act in question is deserving of being permitted, otherwise such disobedience could not truly be considered civil.

 

[AltF4]

Well, "Civil" Disobedience in the respect that it's non-violent. I would not condone physical violence in support of just about any cause.


And you needn't explicitly break the law in question in order to protest. Look a bit, perhaps into Thoreau's essay about the subject. He pretty much coined the term in that essay. He also described how he refused to pay taxes in protest of the Mexican-American war. (and was briefly arrested for doing so!)

 

[pockyD]

To an extent I agree that it's justifiable; however, iirc the point of civil disobedience is to "disobey" in such a way that you draw attention to your issue and can hopefully move towards an actual change in policy

For example, "civil disobedience" of copyright laws by simply "ignoring" it and continuing to download whatever you want without doing it in such a manner as to make a political statement is NOT the proper spirit of "civil disobedience"... if all that is happening is that you continue to have illegal music on your ipod, that does nothing to further change, and is not really much more than petty law-breaking.

So really, I feel like it's "justified" if your goal is not to covertly circumvent the law simply for your own benefit; it is "justified" as a way to draw attention to the issue, but even as you undertake that, you should be fully prepared to take on the existing legal consequences

 

[AltF4]

I would say that Civil disobedience needn't always be a public display for attention. This is true in many cases, and serves very well for this purpose. But needn't always be.

In the case of copyrights, I think it would be fair to say that I do my share to make public my oppinions. After all, I DO happen to possess the longest Original Post on the Smashboards! On just that matter. (And yes, I did write all of that myself.)

But the fight for change takes many forms. It is a fight for the opinions of others. Not everyone will be able to be an outspoken proponent of my cause, even if they do agree with me. If all they are able to do in protest is download their music "illegally", then so be it. There is a certain critical mass of unpopularity that a law can reach where it becomes unjust. Silent supporters like this help in that regard.

The motives don't have to be selfless, either. It is 100% justifiable to disobey laws for selfish motives. Why was it that the American Civil Rights Movement was populated mostly by non-whites? Because those are the people it affected! They wanted to create freedoms for themselves.

The civil rights movement wanted supporters. Even if a supporter only agreed because "they just wanted a job, and didn't care about anyone else's freedoms" they are still a supporter.

Not everyone has to dive head-first into a cause in order for it to be considered "just".

 

[pockyD]

I would say that Civil disobedience needn't always be a public display for attention. This is true in many cases, and serves very well for this purpose. But needn't always be.

In the case of copyrights, I think it would be fair to say that I do my share to make public my oppinions. After all, I DO happen to possess the longest Original Post on the Smashboards! On just that matter. (And yes, I did write all of that myself.)

But the fight for change takes many forms. It is a fight for the opinions of others. Not everyone will be able to be an outspoken proponent of my cause, even if they do agree with me. If all they are able to do in protest is download their music "illegally", then so be it. There is a certain critical mass of unpopularity that a law can reach where it becomes unjust. Silent supporters like this help in that regard.

The motives don't have to be selfless, either. It is 100% justifiable to disobey laws for selfish motives. Why was it that the American Civil Rights Movement was populated mostly by non-whites? Because those are the people it affected! They wanted to create freedoms for themselves.

The civil rights movement wanted supporters. Even if a supporter only agreed because "they just wanted a job, and didn't care about anyone else's freedoms" they are still a supporter.

Not everyone has to dive head-first into a cause in order for it to be considered "just".

First off, I have no idea how you personally feel about anything in particular, and I don't have any strong feelings about copyrights so I'm not going to read your self-proclaimed longest post ever

Anyways... how is what you're suggesting really any different from simply ignoring a law for your own benefit?

If people regularly just choose not to follow laws they don't like, then there is effectively no law in place at all, as the only people abiding by it would be people would not have broken it anyway. In that respect, it is completely irrelevant whether you have a moral issue with the law or not; you can (and will) disobey it if you are ready and willing to face the existing legal consequences.

On the other hand, are you "obligated" to disobey if you disagree on a moral level? (From what I can tell, this is the actual argument, right?) I would say not at all... there are plenty of things that go into the creation of a law that your simple everyman does not understand.

Maybe some people are capable of "seeing" all angles of a law, but the fact of the matter is, most people simply are not, and will only be able to look upon it as it pertains to themselves. If you choose to recognize the greater authority AS an actual authority (which I'm sure not everybody does, but plenty of people do), then it is perfectly reasonable to assume that their knowledge may exceed yours, and as such, trust their judgment. When you were a kid, there were probably all sorts of things your parents told you not to do that you didn't understand, but hopefully, many years down the line, you can probably see that a lot of those things were justified.

That is not to say the government can't be wrong, but you are FAR from "obligated" to actively voice or even act upon your disagreements

 

[AltF4]

Ah, see? Now we've got a debate!

Firstly, I'd like to defer something that this discussion might degenerate into, and that's what the nature of morality is. One might try to argue that selfish intentions cannot ever be moral, or another say that all actions are selfish, etc... That is a rather uninteresting rabbit hole to go down into, and not a very productive one, either. We can just agree that morals are relative (as is evidenced by the fact that people disagree on what is and isn't moral) and continue from there.


I think your argument could fairly be summarized into two halves. The first equating disobedience to anarchy, and the second making an appeal to the government as trustworthy body.

The second is most easily refuted. The government are not our parents, and they should not be acting in any way similar to to our parents. It is not the role of government to "parent" me. The rationale behind a law should NEVER be secret, but rather always open and well known. Laws and government should always be open and transparent. A responsible citizen does not just accept laws and assume that it is for a good reason. That kind of sheep-mentality is what will cause liberty to die.


The first assertion is at least tenable. There is a difference between what I am asserting and Anarchy. A completely lawless society is not what I am proposing. We then have to define a distinction between "Civil Disobedience" and everyday lawbreaking. It would be easy to draw this distinction at "selfish motives" but I don't think that would be entirely correct. A person can justly disobey law for self-serving purposes. (A black person supporting the civil rights movement, for example.)

The difference would be that the person act out of morality, not ENTIRELY out of selfishness. The typical bank robber does so because they just want the money for themselves. They do not have any anti-bank moral agendas, nor any higher purpose (even if unsaid). They just want a quick way to be rich, uncaring for the people they hurt in the process.

I think I can illustrate the differences by a short example with information gradually added in. After each line, ask yourself "is this just?"

- A man robs a store and steals money.
- The robber donated all the stolen money to a poverty stricken town in a third world country.
- The store exploits the poverty in this very town. (Diamond mining, for example)
- The robber lives in this town.


At first, we could safely say that the action is unjust. Robbery (without any other information) is not a moral action.

But then we learn that we're dealing with a Robin Hood type character. He is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Many would conclude so far that the actions are just.

Then we learn that the store is not good, but rather quite bad. Most people would conclude at this point that the robber is justified in his actions.

Lastly, we learn that the robber lives in the affected town. Thus his actions are not entirely selfless. He receives benefit from his robbery, by reducing the poverty in his town. Yet I would still contend that the actions are justified. He is clearly acting out of morality, not just for the money.

 

[pockyD]

Ah, see? Now we've got a debate!

Firstly, I'd like to defer something that this discussion might degenerate into, and that's what the nature of morality is. One might try to argue that selfish intentions cannot ever be moral, or another say that all actions are selfish, etc... That is a rather uninteresting rabbit hole to go down into, and not a very productive one, either. We can just agree that morals are relative (as is evidenced by the fact that people disagree on what is and isn't moral) and continue from there.

of course

I think your argument could fairly be summarized into two halves. The first equating disobedience to anarchy, and the second making an appeal to the government as trustworthy body.

The second is most easily refuted. The government are not our parents, and they should not be acting in any way similar to to our parents. It is not the role of government to "parent" me. The rationale behind a law should NEVER be secret, but rather always open and well known. Laws and government should always be open and transparent. A responsible citizen does not just accept laws and assume that it is for a good reason. That kind of sheep-mentality is what will cause liberty to die.

The rationale IS (or should be, anyway) transparent, but like I said, your average person doesn't bother to find out about it, even if it is available.

Really, have a discussion with your average person about any real "issue" and 80% of the time, you'll find that they don't really know what they're talking about

And regardless, this was a response to your conjecture that one would be "obligated" to disobey.

The first assertion is at least tenable. There is a difference between what I am asserting and Anarchy. A completely lawless society is not what I am proposing. We then have to define a distinction between "Civil Disobedience" and everyday lawbreaking. It would be easy to draw this distinction at "selfish motives" but I don't think that would be entirely correct. A person can justly disobey law for self-serving purposes. (A black person supporting the civil rights movement, for example.)

Of course selfish and "right" can overlap; but just as easily, they can be exclusive from each other. I'd rather not turn this into a semantic argument, but obviously I'm referring to which would be the driving factor. Point is, if one actually believes pirating software or something is wrong, he/she should not be doing it.

The difference would be that the person act out of morality, not ENTIRELY out of selfishness. The typical bank robber does so because they just want the money for themselves. They do not have any anti-bank moral agendas, nor any higher purpose (even if unsaid). They just want a quick way to be rich, uncaring for the people they hurt in the process.

maybe... but this just goes back to the ol "would you steal a loaf of bread to feed your starving family" thing. there are ALWAYS gray areas, and whether you "need" the money or not shouldn't affect whether your actions are morally right. It shouldn't be up to you to decide who needs to the loaf of bread more. I realize this is a tangent, but since you are bringing motives into the equation, I feel I need to express that motives are among the least cut-and-dried things around

I think I can illustrate the differences by a short example with information gradually added in. After each line, ask yourself "is this just?"

- A man robs a store and steals money.
- The robber donated all the stolen money to a poverty stricken town in a third world country.
- The store exploits the poverty in this very town. (Diamond mining, for example)
- The robber lives in this town.

At first, we could safely say that the action is unjust. Robbery (without any other information) is not a moral action.

But then we learn that we're dealing with a Robin Hood type character. He is stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Many would conclude so far that the actions are just.

Then we learn that the store is not good, but rather quite bad. Most people would conclude at this point that the robber is justified in his actions.

Lastly, we learn that the robber lives in the affected town. Thus his actions are not entirely selfless. He receives benefit from his robbery, by reducing the poverty in his town. Yet I would still contend that the actions are justified. He is clearly acting out of morality, not just for the money.

Maybe it's just, maybe it's not, but you're putting that decision solely in the hands of your vigilante robber. If we could easily assume all people were good-hearted and constantly looked out for others, then it might work out, but for every thief who is trying to be robin hood, there are probably hundreds who are just out for themselves, and maybe only robbed the oppressive store out of pure happenstance. How can you possibly distinguish between them?

It would simply be ridiculous to allow all individuals to play by the rules of their own personal moral codes

 

[AltF4]

Oh, I'm not suggesting that (if caught) the robber in my example should not be prosecuted. I am talking about morality, not legality. I am not asserting that we ought not to prosecute people on the basis of morality.

I am asserting that despite the law and consequences, one should disobey laws that they believe to be unjust. Until the law is changed, however, it should be enforced. I am encouraging any readers to disobey laws (or other rules, even if not law) that they feel is unjust.

For example, the Texas school board just decided to teach that the Earth "might be" 6,000 years old in Science class. If I were a teacher in Texas, I would openly refuse to teach such a load of nonsense. And would likely lose my job because of it. And that's the way it should work. Citizens should stand up for what they believe in.

I only want to quote one line from you, one that illustrates our differences of opinion the most:

It shouldn't be up to you to decide who needs to the loaf of bread more.

Yes it should be. Telling people to act on their morals is exactly what I'm asserting.

If you shouldn't be the one "to decide", then who is? The government?

 

[Darxmarth23]

A punishment for your beliefs and morals. Sheesh. That sounds harsh.

I don't think the government is to decide anything, but then again that would lead to a state of nature.

 

[pockyD]

If you shouldn't be the one "to decide", then who is? The government?

The person who already owns the loaf of bread... but this is already off-topic

Anyways, I see what you're saying, but I feel like I already agreed that if you care enough about the issue that you're willing to take on the consequences, then go ahead and disobey...

...but in reality, this is pretty much a non-statement, since people already naturally weigh the risk v reward when deciding to do something, even if it's not morally correct. Whether their action is morally correct or not won't really directly affect whether they decide to undertake an illegal action - it might be an intangible addition to the "reward" column, but if reward still doesn't outweigh risk, they still won't do it, and nor should they.

Maybe you would have an easy time finding another job after getting fired from the school. Maybe you don't have bills to pay, mouths to feed, etc. etc.... but if someone else does, I don't seem them as at fault for making a moral compromise (even though in this case, I barely even see it as that to say Creationism "might" have happened) to save their livelihoods.

People care about causes to varying degrees, and that is already naturally reflected in their actions.

 

[Overload]

If everyone blindly followed everything the government told them this would indeed be a scary world. I too believe it's absolutely necessary to take a stance against laws that you find immoral. Things do change this way. For example, in my school last year they had a rule stating you couldn't wear hooded sweatshirts. Plenty of people disregarded this rule and wore them anyways, especially when it was cold and they needed to keep warm. The rule doesn't exist anymore.

 

[Darxmarth23]

if everyone blindly followed the government, then we would be a command economy and government.

The thing is, criminals find what they do to be just, and that is what is needed to create a functioning society.

Criminals act upon what they believe. They act upon their morals. Even though its against the government. But, then again crime is needed to keep a society going.

 

[Zero Beat]

If you believe a law to be immoral, is it justifiable to disobey it?

YES!

Everything is just until it can be shown to be unjust. Because a law pretends to exist in the name of justice, if it is unjust, it isn't actually there in the name of justice, or it is outside the scope of its intended purpose, and as such its own assumptions or pretensions are in contradiction to its stated purpose.

 

[IWontGetOverTheDam]

This is something I've struggled with for a while. Not literally, but in certain context. For example, I think marijuana should be legal, but I don't smoke it at all. I also think laws regarding media piracy are unjust, and I pirate stuff all the time. However, I don't really think one should be able to pick and choose which laws they want to follow. That said, I'm a hypocrite for believe that while openly admitting my views about internet piracy.

Man, I am inarticulate. :|

 

[~Peachy~]

♡In a society that is not corrupt, laws are meant to take in the consideration of the people as a whole, not just an individual person. Laws usually make a generalization with the citizens' well-being in mind. Just look at the DWI laws, they are meant to keep innocent people on the road safe from drunk-drivers.

♡Then again, saying if a society is corrupt or not is entirely subjective, isn't it?

 

[Darxmarth23]

YES!

Everything is just until it can be shown to be unjust. Because a law pretends to exist in the name of justice, if it is unjust, it isn't actually there in the name of justice, or it is outside the scope of its intended purpose, and as such its own assumptions or pretensions are in contradiction to its stated purpose.

There are obviously pros and cons to this since people have different morals. And that creates crime.

Every society has corruption and crime because we do disobey laws until they are proven to us morally just. Its because everyone has different wants that exceed what the lawmakers provide.

But crime doesn't make a society worse. It helps it. As long as it maintains a balance using this rule.