I wrote this for my intro to political theory class this week. thought you guys might find it interesting and have more discussion about the topic.
Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice?
Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice? No, citizens of a state do not owe consent or obedience to any state that engages in injustice. Everything the Nazi's did in Germany was legal, but undoubtedly unjust. So did the German soldiers have a duty to follow the laws and orders from the German government? "Just following orders" was not a viable defense at the Nuremburg trials, so why should we not stand up to unjust laws if we expect others to do so? If we allow unjust laws without protest, we are just as guilty of injustice as the government making such unjust laws
Thoreau
Both Thoreau and King supported protesting or resisting unjust laws. Henry David Thoreau said "I cannot for any instance recognize that political organization as my government which is the slaves government also" (Thoreau P.222-3). I understand this to mean that he renounces the rule of the government so long as it is engaged in injustices such as allowing slavery. "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"(Thoreau. P.225). Thoreau made quite clear his opinion that injustice was not to go un-remedied or un-protested by just men. And that any man who did not protest injustices perpetrated on his fellow man or himself was complicit in perpetrating the injustices. Thoreau said on unjust laws, “I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine” (Thoreau 1212).
King
Many of Kings opposition and even some of his supporters did not understand why he supported obeying some laws while so adamantly apposing other laws. He explained quite well in the following quote from his letter from the Birmingham jail. "Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I
would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all"(Martin Luther King. p3). He goes on to explain that a just law aligns with moral or natural law, and that unjust laws are not in alignment with natural law. Simply not wanting a law to apply to you does not constitute an unjust law. It has to fit the criteria of being immoral to be considered an unjust law. Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau are considered two of the most kind and peaceful men in history. And Their lives are often looked at by people looking to learn how to live more peaceful lives. Neither of them ever tried to incite violence against the state or against their fellow citizens. So their opinions and arguments for civil disobedience are well worth our consideration as individuals and as a society.
Edward Snowden
Effectively protesting injustices engaged in by the state often requires the breaking of laws. Even then it is still our duty to call out the state in their injustices. Edward Snowden was an NSA agent who came out to expose illegal activities being engaged in by the federal government. He felt that it was his duty to expose the unconstitutional activities being perpetrated on the American people by the government. Some have said that he is unpatriotic for exposing state secrets to the public. I strongly oppose the idea that people who oppose and expose the states injustices are branded as unpatriotic and traitors. On the contrary, I believe they are indeed the most patriotic among us. Thanks to the information that Edward Snowden made available to the public, what were once only the suspicions of conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs are now well known facts about the unconstitutional activities that the government was and still is engaging in. Including mass surveillance of the American people and our allies.
Plato
On the other hand, Plato was of the opinion that you are a product of the state that you live under, so you owe the state your consent and obedience because you cannot receive the benefits of living under the state without also receiving any consequences of living under the state(tinder. P114). Plato and Socrates' ideas are very authoritarian when compared to those of King and Thoreau. From a more liberty and individualist mindset, injustice begets injustice. Meaning that if we allow an unjust law to prevail there will soon be made more unjust laws. "Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!" (princess bride). We should not rely so heavily on the opinions of ancient scholars to form our own moral opinions.
Rawls
Civil disobedience entails breaking laws, but should never employ violence to convey the ideas of the civilly disobedient. "This definition does not require that the civilly disobedient act breach the same law that is being protested. It allows for what some have called indirect as well as direct civil disobedience"(Rawls. P.363-7). Some laws to be protested might come with high penalties, like treason, that might be more severe punishment than someone would accept for protesting such a law. In cases such as this it is reasonable and maybe even expected to instead infringe on laws that hold more reasonable penalties. Such as disobeying traffic ordinances or trespassing to protest the higher penalty laws. Rawls states that civil disobedience should be held as a last resort after all legal options to fight the injustice have failed. He says that only after attempts to repeal the laws and legal protests are ignored should civil disobedience be employed(Rawls. P.371-6). Though, he says, in some extreme cases it may be expedient to pursue civil disobedience prior to pursuing legal means of action.
Conclusion
It is always our duty to disobey or protest unjust laws, even if it is inconvenient to do so. All power and authority of the state is given willingly by the people. And can likewise be taken back by the people if enough of them so choose. If the people do not protest unjust laws they give implied consent for more unjust laws to be made. When a people becomes apathetic the state no longer has to worry about their injustices being questioned or protested. And it is our duty as a society to avoid apathy and keep our fellow citizens from slipping into apathy.
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther.Letter From Birmingham Jail. august 1963
Princess bride. Dir. Rob Reiner. Perf. Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Robin Wright. Princess Bride Ltd.., 1987. Film.
Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil disobedience. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, 2001. Print.
Tinder, Glenn E.. Political thinking: the perennial questions. 6th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004. Print.
Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice?
Do you owe the state your consent and obedience even if the state itself is engaging in injustice? No, citizens of a state do not owe consent or obedience to any state that engages in injustice. Everything the Nazi's did in Germany was legal, but undoubtedly unjust. So did the German soldiers have a duty to follow the laws and orders from the German government? "Just following orders" was not a viable defense at the Nuremburg trials, so why should we not stand up to unjust laws if we expect others to do so? If we allow unjust laws without protest, we are just as guilty of injustice as the government making such unjust laws
Thoreau
Both Thoreau and King supported protesting or resisting unjust laws. Henry David Thoreau said "I cannot for any instance recognize that political organization as my government which is the slaves government also" (Thoreau P.222-3). I understand this to mean that he renounces the rule of the government so long as it is engaged in injustices such as allowing slavery. "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison"(Thoreau. P.225). Thoreau made quite clear his opinion that injustice was not to go un-remedied or un-protested by just men. And that any man who did not protest injustices perpetrated on his fellow man or himself was complicit in perpetrating the injustices. Thoreau said on unjust laws, “I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine” (Thoreau 1212).
King
Many of Kings opposition and even some of his supporters did not understand why he supported obeying some laws while so adamantly apposing other laws. He explained quite well in the following quote from his letter from the Birmingham jail. "Since we so diligently urge people to obey the Supreme Court's decision of 1954 outlawing segregation in the public schools, it is rather strange and paradoxical to find us consciously breaking laws. One may well ask, "How can you advocate breaking some laws and obeying others?" The answer is found in the fact that there are two types of laws: there are just laws, and there are unjust laws. I
would agree with St. Augustine that "An unjust law is no law at all"(Martin Luther King. p3). He goes on to explain that a just law aligns with moral or natural law, and that unjust laws are not in alignment with natural law. Simply not wanting a law to apply to you does not constitute an unjust law. It has to fit the criteria of being immoral to be considered an unjust law. Martin Luther King and Henry David Thoreau are considered two of the most kind and peaceful men in history. And Their lives are often looked at by people looking to learn how to live more peaceful lives. Neither of them ever tried to incite violence against the state or against their fellow citizens. So their opinions and arguments for civil disobedience are well worth our consideration as individuals and as a society.
Edward Snowden
Effectively protesting injustices engaged in by the state often requires the breaking of laws. Even then it is still our duty to call out the state in their injustices. Edward Snowden was an NSA agent who came out to expose illegal activities being engaged in by the federal government. He felt that it was his duty to expose the unconstitutional activities being perpetrated on the American people by the government. Some have said that he is unpatriotic for exposing state secrets to the public. I strongly oppose the idea that people who oppose and expose the states injustices are branded as unpatriotic and traitors. On the contrary, I believe they are indeed the most patriotic among us. Thanks to the information that Edward Snowden made available to the public, what were once only the suspicions of conspiracy theorists and nut-jobs are now well known facts about the unconstitutional activities that the government was and still is engaging in. Including mass surveillance of the American people and our allies.
Plato
On the other hand, Plato was of the opinion that you are a product of the state that you live under, so you owe the state your consent and obedience because you cannot receive the benefits of living under the state without also receiving any consequences of living under the state(tinder. P114). Plato and Socrates' ideas are very authoritarian when compared to those of King and Thoreau. From a more liberty and individualist mindset, injustice begets injustice. Meaning that if we allow an unjust law to prevail there will soon be made more unjust laws. "Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates? Morons!" (princess bride). We should not rely so heavily on the opinions of ancient scholars to form our own moral opinions.
Rawls
Civil disobedience entails breaking laws, but should never employ violence to convey the ideas of the civilly disobedient. "This definition does not require that the civilly disobedient act breach the same law that is being protested. It allows for what some have called indirect as well as direct civil disobedience"(Rawls. P.363-7). Some laws to be protested might come with high penalties, like treason, that might be more severe punishment than someone would accept for protesting such a law. In cases such as this it is reasonable and maybe even expected to instead infringe on laws that hold more reasonable penalties. Such as disobeying traffic ordinances or trespassing to protest the higher penalty laws. Rawls states that civil disobedience should be held as a last resort after all legal options to fight the injustice have failed. He says that only after attempts to repeal the laws and legal protests are ignored should civil disobedience be employed(Rawls. P.371-6). Though, he says, in some extreme cases it may be expedient to pursue civil disobedience prior to pursuing legal means of action.
Conclusion
It is always our duty to disobey or protest unjust laws, even if it is inconvenient to do so. All power and authority of the state is given willingly by the people. And can likewise be taken back by the people if enough of them so choose. If the people do not protest unjust laws they give implied consent for more unjust laws to be made. When a people becomes apathetic the state no longer has to worry about their injustices being questioned or protested. And it is our duty as a society to avoid apathy and keep our fellow citizens from slipping into apathy.
Works Cited
King, Martin Luther.Letter From Birmingham Jail. august 1963
Princess bride. Dir. Rob Reiner. Perf. Cary Elwes, Mandy Patinkin, Robin Wright. Princess Bride Ltd.., 1987. Film.
Rawls, John. A theory of justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971. Print.
Thoreau, Henry David. Civil disobedience. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech, 2001. Print.
Tinder, Glenn E.. Political thinking: the perennial questions. 6th ed. New York: Pearson/Longman, 2004. Print.
