Civil Disobedience: Examples and MLK's Letter

• Part 2 addresses normative issues in the philosophy of law, focusing on civil disobedience.

Civil Disobedience

• Civil disobedience involves openly, non-violently, and conscientiously opposing laws with the goal of changing laws or government policies.

Historical Examples

• Boston Tea Party: Colonists protested British taxes by dumping tea into Boston harbor.
• Susan B. Anthony: She illegally voted to advocate for women's enfranchisement.
• Rosa Parks: Parks refused to give up her bus seat to protest segregation.
• Martin Luther King Jr.: He led sit-ins, marches, and boycotts to protest segregation laws.

Context of MLK's Letter

• Legal channels were viewed as inadequate by MLK to achieve civil rights.
• The strategy was to organize nonviolent campaigns like marches, sit-ins, and boycotts.
• According to MLK "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere”.
• MLK's jailing was due to protesting without a permit; he considered the law unjust.
• The law's purpose was to maintain segregation and deny First Amendment rights of assembly and protest.

Four Steps to Nonviolent Campaign

• First, collect all relevant data to ascertain whether injustice exists.
• If injustice exists, and as a second step, injustices should be rectified through available legal channels and good faith negotiation
• If negotiation fails, one should pursue self-purification as a third step to prepare for non-violent resistance
• As a fourth step, enact direct action non-violent resistance to force community confrontation and dramatize ignored issues.

Just vs. Unjust Laws

• Just laws align with moral law.
• Unjust laws are out of harmony with moral law.
• Unjust laws are those not rooted in eternal and natural law.
• Just laws uplift human personality
• Unjust laws degrade it unjust.
• Segregation laws are unjust because they foster superiority and inferiority, distorting the soul and damaging the personality.
• Injustice affects both the oppressed and the oppressor.
• Oppressors are corrupted by a false sense of superiority based on factors like race.
• Moral law originates from God.
• Laws that don't align with God's moral law lose legitimacy and may be resisted.

The White Moderate

• The biggest obstacle to freedom is the white moderate.
• They value order over justice, preferring negative peace over positive justice.
• They hinder social progress by appearing supportive while undermining urgency.
• They don't support civil rights and oppose disruptive actions.

MLK and Accepting Punishment

• Citizens should accept the penalty for breaking unjust laws, demonstrating commitment to justice.
• Civil disobedience is a last resort, not for personal gain.
• It’s used after failed negotiations to highlight the gap between society's ideals and discriminatory practices.
• Willingness to accept punishment demonstrates sincerity and respect for the legal system.
• Societal pressure will align legal codes with moral principles.
• If civil disobedience fails, it could drive people to violence and racial conflict.

Rawls and the Original Position

• Rawls examines principles regulating the basic structure/ institutions of society.
• The original position is devised as a thought experiment.
• Individuals operate behind a "veil of ignorance", unaware of personal characteristics.
• The original position guarantees fairness since people choose principles without bias.
• Conceptions of justice are shaped by personal characteristics outside our control.

Rawls and the Two Principles of Justice

• Rawls argues that principles chosen would include: The Basic Liberties Principle and Fair Equality of Opportunity and Difference Principle.
• The Basic Liberties Principle states that everyone has equal rights to the most extensive liberties possible, compatible with liberty for all.
• The Fair Equality of Opportunity and Difference Principle states that social and economic inequalities should benefit the least advantaged and ensure equal opportunity.
• The First Principle is equal basic liberties and has absolute priority over the second and violations aren't allowed to advance social/economic advantages.
• Fair Equality of Opportunity takes priority over the difference principle.

Rawls' Assumptions & Definition of Civil Disobedience

• Rawls assumes society is nearly just, but imperfect.
• Citizens largely agree on democratic society principles would endorse the original position.
• Serious injustices occur in practice that the civil disobedient can address to have those in power confront the tension.
• Civil Disobedience involves conscientious, public, nonviolent acts contrary to law, aiming to change laws or policies.

Rawls' Aspects of Civil Disobedience's Several Features

• Civil disobedience should be Public, not private, so the protestors can draw attention of law makers to the violations.
• Civil disobedience is non-violent, seeking to appeal to the public's sense of justice without force.
• Civil disobedience is conscientious, stemming from sincere moral convictions, not self-interest.
• Civil disobedience is political, addressing unjust laws within a democratic system.
• Civil disobedience is illegal as it breaks unjust laws to highlight injustice.
• Civil disobedience aims to cause political change within the existing system, seeking greater justice.
• Those engaging in civil disobedience accept punishment to demonstrate sincerity.

Rawls & Justification of Civil Disobedience

• Civil disobedience must be reserved for incidents of serious and clear injustice over infringements of basic liberties (voting rights, free speech).
• All normal avenues of appeal to the political majority must have been pursued to no avail making civil disobedience the only method of addressing the problem.
• People weighing civil disobedience must acknowledge a similar right for others, and be careful to not undermine the nearly just institutions.

Obligation to Obey the Law

• Rawls assumes institutions are fundamentally just although extreme resistance may be necessary in other circumstances.

Trial of Socrates

• In 399 BCE, he was accused of corrupting the young and not believing in the city's gods.
• He presented a defense speech before 501 Athenian male citizens.
• The jury voted him guilty 280 to 221.
• The jury voted on sentencing him to death.

Socrates and Crito

• Crito tried to persuade Socrates to escape before his execution.
• Socrates' execution was delayed for a religious festival.
• He reasoned that it was his obligation to not escape.
• Socrates said, one must never commit injustice-especially another wrongful prosecution.
• By disobeying his sentence, it would show ingratitude to the parents who nurtered him when he received many benefits from Athens, including education
• He would be breaching the social contract-Voluntarily remain in Athens and participating in its institutions portrays him implicitly agreeing to abide by its law and judgments
• He could have tried to persuade the city to change its law when he remained in Athens so if persuasion fails, he must obey those laws.
• Escaping Harm to City, would cause harm to Athens and weaken the respect for its laws and destabilize its civic life and institutions
• Crito is viewed as a fervent defense of a citizen's obligation to obey the law.

Is there a Prima Facie Obligation to Obey the Law

• Smith is skeptical about the general obligation to obey the law.
• The moral relation means that the laws should have prima facie obligation do certain things merely because they are legally required to do so.
• A Prima facie obligation is not an absolute obligation, but can be outweighed by strong moral considerations.
• There is a Widely shared assumption that there is an obligation.

Arguments for an Obligation-Gratitude

• Government provides benefits like security and public education.
• Citizens owe the government the gratitude to obey its various laws.
• Smith finds the argument from gratitude uncompelling for three reasons:
  • Benefits from government are forced upon individuals, rather voluntarily accepted.
  • Government sometimes confers benefits out of self-interest rather than genuine concern.
  • Even if one does owe gratitude, it doesn't morally require obeying all laws.

Arguments for an Obligation—Fair Play

• Society is a cooperative enterprise where individuals place restrictions on their liberty for mutual benefit with someone enjoying those benefits and doesn't allow their own liberty.
• People have the prima facie obligation to obey laws in order to avoid free-riding on the efforts of others who restrict their freedoms
• Smith doesn't find the argument from fairplay compelling:
  • Fair Play seems more applicable to cooperative enterprises that are voluntary.
  • Aconsiderations of fairness require an individual who does not benefit from it to obey as well if one does benefit from the law
  • Disobeying a law does not take advantage of others.

Arguments for an Obligation—Just Institutions

• Compliance is necessary because we must support just institutions because they secure justice and fairness in society to operate.
• Smith doesn't find the argument from just institutions compelling:
  • Just institutions can withstand some noncompliance and thus, just institutions are not necessarily undermined by legal violations.
  • Some legal violations appear to strengthen or improve the quality of the institutions.
  • Not every law is related to justice.

Arguments for an Obligation-Consent

• Most people implicitly consent by remaining in their country, which means that they incur a prima facie obligation to obey laws.

• Smith doesn't find the argument from consent compelling:

  • Unlike accepting a meal at a restaurant. it is not clear that citizens understand their behavior as constituting some type of consent to obey the laws
  • The costs of leaving are so huge some people have alternative option to remaining in their legal system
  • The democratic process may not indicate consent .

• David Hume was skeptical of the social contract tradition when looking at social contracts:

  • Tacit consent =Staying in a country is an implicit decision of citizens which makes them agree to follow its rules and government.
  • Many people are born into society and don't active choose to stay or leave
  • Disadvantaged or poor people is not a feasible opinion due to lack of resources, language barriers, other constraints
  • Comparing staying in a country to staying on a ship (where leaving = drowning) doesn't represent consent to stay.

Arguments for an Obligation—Act Utilitarian

• Compliance protects society from great evil and a functioning legal system is essential due to a miserable state of nature.
• There is a prima facie obligation to follow the laws of society since citizens must abide by the law to protect society and its legal system.
• Smith does not find the argument from consent compelling:
  • There is no individual right because action should produces the greatest aggregate happiness so a negative consequence for society is when breaking a law has no negative consequences for society or even leads to better outcomes than obeying it.

Arguments for an Obligation-Generalization

• Action can't be morally indifferent unless it is morally indifferent when everyone does it E.G. tax evasion, otherwise known as when everyone does it is wrong
• Smith argued that if everyone doesn't obey the law then society would collapse but there is a right for individual choices.

Arguments for an Obligation-Generalization

• Some behavior is innocuous in isolation but disastrous when universalized E.G. Single farmer vs all farmers quitting their job, widespread lawbreaking would be disastrous and does not entail any individual act of disobedience to be wrong.
• Argument assumes generalized obedience is good, What if laws are unjust? If everyone obeyed anti-semitis laws in Nazi, Germany, society would be worse off.

Arguments for an Obligation-Rule Utilitarian

• The Basic gist of what he suggests is that Rule utilitarianism holds that individuals should increase the overall happiness for society
• Smith doesn't find the argument from utilitarian uncompelling with how he notes that without feeling a general obligation people would feel that you can't decline in happiness even if a prima facie action goes against their obligation

Conclusion

• Smith argues traditional justifications for prima facie obligation has been unsuccessful with how morality wasn't able to derive from a law and there should be the belief that a law does not establish a moral obligation for people but should rely on peoples moral reasoning.

Harm Principle

• In "On Liberty", Mill defends individual liberty against legal and social tyranny.
• Legal tyranny involves unwarranted penalties imposed by the state.
• Social tyranny consists of unwarranted penalties imposed by public opinion.
• Together, social and legal tyranny suppress individual liberties, discouraging individuality, while promoting conformity.
• The Harm Principle restrains society's power over individuals that should only constrain society's power over individuals to prevent harm and liberty only to prevent and stop others.
• Society may only restrict individual liberty if it will prevent harm to others, not the self.
• The Harm Principle acts as a wedge between tyranny by expanding space for individuality and liberty

Harm Principle and Three Key Liberties.

• Freedom of opinion and its expressions.
• Freedoms of tastes and pursuits, as long as one's life's plan doesn't harm others.
• Freedom of association, as long as it doesn't harm others.
• Mill defends the Harm Principle because of its promotion of overall happiness.
• The Harm Principle applies to competent individuals capable of self-improvement.
• Preventing harm may justify societal interference, but harm alone isn't always sufficient for restricting liberty.
• The Harm Principle isn't a justification for selfish indifference. Society can sometimes require positive actions for public benefit.

Mill's Defense of Free Speech Promoting Truth

• Assumption of Infallibility: Humans are fallible, so censorship risks suppressing truth, robbing society of the opportunity to improve
• Partial Truths: Political/moral opinions contain part of the truth, needing opposing views that will help you learn
• Censorship limits ability to learn and get closer to the true meaning of something.

Mill Second Argument

• Free speech in cultivating character:
• Dead Dogma: Allowing false ideas to be expressed will allow to challenge previously believed ideas to see the rational truth.
• It stops ideas from risk hardening into dogmas and allows you to genuinely understand something
• Vital Effect: The opinions create become become dead beliefs and not longer energize practical action.

Restrictions on Speech

• Incitement in Brandenburg v, Ohio created a test which refined the clear and present danger test where Holmes asserted that you can't shout fire falsely in theeathre.

Mill's liberty of action argument

• Allowing freedom to experiment with their own is good because they know more of their desires than you do.

Authority of Society over the Individual

• Punishing self-regarding behavior is best addressed through social disapproval rather than legal action.
• There is an appropriate punishment for sel-regarding conduct is inconveniences which are strictly inseparable from the unfavorable judgment of others as persuasion rather than coercion is the best means of encouraging change.

Offense to Others

• For society to achieve happiness, individuals must develop themselves and express individuality without many constraints.
• However, it can't be considered a harmful or the whole meaning is twisted in terms of only expression or behavior
• Instead, by allowing them to shape their lives is how you should conduct social change.

Application of the Harm Principle

• There are cases for where the Harm Principle are ones where state has to intervene in the matter:

  • Paternalism
    • Immediate warnings are possible
    • Mandating information is there so people know whats happening
    • Taxes is not compatible
    • Banning irreovable agreements may be justified, such as a marriage contract.
  • Education
    • Legally education ones parents has independence so that they develop a better insight with how your are running with them.
  • Procreation
    • Harm Principle allows for the ability to provide their child with everything in terms of care.

• A state should consider the worth of the individual composing it with its interests and can accomplish.

• Legal Paternalism When someone's freedom is restricted to protect them or improve their well-being to help the indivudals in the end rather than making them rely on things they can't do.

Paternalism

• Paternalism relates from the context of limiting a child from not doing that but more in a good context

Examples of paternalism

• Safety regulations: Seat belt law's and laws for swimming outside
• Moral and behavioral restrictions: Suicide is restricted along with weed or gambling.
• Economic and financial restrictions: Loans and retirement
• A law is paternalistic if it is justified by the aim of protecting individuals from their own choices

Mill's Opposing View of Paternalism

• Mill strongy opposed paternalism and stated to prevent these to HARM TO OTHERS but the main core is to use your own liberty it.

Mill v. Paternalism

1. People know what is best for their autonomy and has a essential means of going the best way to do something with autonomy
2. With the over reaching the person will get stunned due to not making the right choice and not the ability to develop independent is ruined
3. 2 Other philosophers view's is paternalism helps people be respectful and think there oughtnomy.

Dworkin’s Argument for Paternalism

• Was relied on examples on how someone has the ability to be free they need to accept it
• Therefore people accept limits now to be have to be fully freedom for a a later date

Dworkin and limitations

• Examples exist like you can't just allow people get hurt in the wrong hands like with the safety to allow peoples fundamental goods over the ability to limit it

Dworkin

• Government can't impose their ideas to control and you have to show their is a benfiit and that you will continue to show liberty.

Libertarian Paternalism

• Thaler and Sunstein said people have to act in the interest of whats best while behavioral science shows irrational.

How it operates

• Has three operations = Nudge to persuade rather restrict freedom, freedom should always be a part,
• The over arch is to make ethically ethical nudge in a way

Main belief

• The main belief is that they have to be a liberty with no coercion

Nudge example

• Can nudge it to make a healthy option over an opt one

Speech Acts

• Is when Mackinnon argued that porn subordinates men and women
• Critics claim that pornogrphay has no right of defending

Langton position

• Agrued between liberties as 2 factors to why

Langton theory

• Speech is performative
• has: Locutionary Act, Perlocutionary Act

Illustration and Felicity Conditions

• Require that these need to be done for something to succeed such as context
• Imagins of a sign: "whites only" in the example
• Speech acts do not have the right or express an attitudes because if it was against other you will face the means of how it plays into actions.

Subordinating speech and racism

-Depends on the context of the situation if a store says i'ds whites on they will be forced into discrimination

Speech silencing

• The common view is women need more support
• and they have right ot be spoken over.

Power control

Langton says that depends on whom you are it might be ok so if it depends

1. yes then have it
2. of no you shuld not

Free Speech

• Speech can take action to prevent a response to it due to not having an answer.

Legal and moral positions

It should show key aspects along with a clear one and is there that has a clear and should get some moral and should show if somethings been hurt

Legal Moralism and the Hart-Devlin Debate

• Can be for both parties but you must show the proper rights

• If one believes the first Hart-Devlin Debate then they would want to be extremely strict

Strong positions

Moral should be legally with force and that one should pursue morality for this cause.

1. Moderate Thesis (Weaker Legal Moral)
2. Law should make a action due to stability. ""

Conclusion

• The "Hart's Quote:""It is too often assumed morality

is the cause for everything and has to be done against it.

Moral Luck and Responsibility Thomas Nagel

• The main is people are what there responsible for
• yet as paradoxically this works for luck as you only rely on luck

The Four Aspects of Moral Luck:

1. Resultant Luck (Luck in Outcomes)
   • the more luck is had

The other four aspects

1 Key : We think that one that control should be good 2- Circustial Luck: We judge from what peoples circumstances tell us what to do 3- Constive Lock. A lack that says what needs to be done

Luck and luck in events

• If people don't have the right and ability to control whats happening they should keep control anyway

The Garden of Free will

• Nagel states as If determinism is true, our choices are not really ours

View of View

• The internal external has a key value showing that Even though moral responsibility seems to collapse under scrutiny, we cannot escape the feeling that we are responsible.