Civil Disobedience

[rado]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Should Adolf Hitler have followed his own moral code?

You don't think he did?

Rado

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by rado

You don't think he did?

Rado

Yes he did. The question is, should he have.

[rado]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

Yes he did. The question is, should he have.

I don't think that would have changed much, in the greater perspective. Whatever happens here on earth it's is a cocreative venture, Hitler was just the catalyst and orchestrator of those currents that was part of mass consciousness back then. You might say he played the leading part in the play, but without all the other actors playing their parts, and following their moral codes (or not), he would be nothing.

No man has more power than anyone else, it just appears to be so because some are fit to play the role as orchestrators, while others are fit to play the role of followers, for whatever reasons they might have - agreement, fear, apathy, ignorance etc.. But they who follow orders are just as responsible for what they do, as those who gives the orders. If every german soldier had refused to fight for Hitler, WW2 would never had happened, and if everyone who participated in killing the jews had refused to do so, not one would have been killed.

Like a great teacher once said: "No one is guilty, but everyone is responsible."

Rado

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by rado

I don't think that would have changed much, in the greater perspective. Whatever happens here on earth it's is a cocreative venture, Hitler was just the catalyst and orchestrator of those currents that was part of mass consciousness back then. You might say he played the leading part in the play, but without all the other actors playing their parts, and following their moral codes (or not), he would be nothing.

No man has more power than anyone else, it just appears to be so because some are fit to play the role as orchestrators, while others are fit to play the role of followers, for whatever reasons they might have - agreement, fear, apathy, ignorance etc.. But they who follow orders are just as responsible for what they do, as those who gives the orders. If every german soldier had refused to fight for Hitler, WW2 would never had happened, and if everyone who participated in killing the jews had refused to do so, not one would have been killed.

Like a great teacher once said: "No one is guilty, but everyone is responsible."

Rado

You wrote: I believe one should follow one's own moral and ethical codex and nothing else.
I asked whether you believed that Hitler should have followed his own moral code.

What is your reply?

[rado]

Originally Posted by kennethamy

You wrote: I believe one should follow one's own moral and ethical codex and nothing else.
I asked whether you believed that Hitler should have followed his own moral code.

What is your reply?

I already answered that by my first statement. If there were any exceptions the statement would be self-contradictory.

Rado

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by rado

I already answered that by my first statement. If there were any exceptions the statement would be self-contradictory.

Rado

And that statement was? I don't know what your first statement was, but if you mean that Hitler should have followed his own moral code, then I think you are wrong. Exceptions to a statement do not make that statement contradictory. But perhaps you mean by "exceptions" counter-examples. If that is what you mean, then counter-examples make a statement false. And although all contradictory statements are false, it is not true that all false statements are contradictory statements. For example, if the statement is , all swans are white, then the production of a black swan would be a counter-example, and make the statement that all swans are white false, but not contradictory.

[Didymos Thomas]

Clearly, the moral obligation to obey a particular law, and the moral obligation to obey the laws of the State are different. Whether I have satisfied my latter obligation when I accept my punishment although I disobeyed a particular law is, it seems to me, not clear. And I know of no argument which would persuade me one way or the other. It may be that it is true that we can say if someone accepts his punishment after having intentionally violated a law something like, At least it shows he respects the law" or something of that sort. But that is, of course, "subjective". He may respect the law, but that does not show he has satisfied his obligation to obey laws.

Isn't that a central question, though? What sort of obligation, if any, do we have to law?

I think you are right that some states deserve obedience and that others do not, but if we are right, there must be some method of determining the difference between the two.

I believe one should follow one's own moral and ethical codex and nothing else.

As kennethamy points out, this claim produces problems when we consider someone like a Hitler or Mao Zedong. I understand your point about the influence of others, universal responsibility, and even agree with you to an extent. The problem is that your claim seems to justify someone committing murder if their "own moral and ethical codex" agrees with the act.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Isn't that a central question, though? What sort of obligation, if any, do we have to law?

I think you are right that some states deserve obedience and that others do not, but if we are right, there must be some method of determining the difference between the two.

I suppose that we have what is sometimes called a , "prima-facie" obligation to obey the law. Which is to say, that unless it is overridden by another, stronger obligation, we ought to obey the law. In Socrates's case, for example, he did not obey Athenian law when he violated it by teaching as he was commanded not to do, because he believe he had a higher obligation to teach the truth. But, on the other hand, he believed that his obligation to obey the law overrode his obligations to escape from prison. I know of no method by which we can decide which of two conflicting obligations is the higher or stronger obligation. I suppose that is a matter of moral judgment.

[Didymos Thomas]

I think Socrates would agree with me when I say that he did not violate Athenian law by teaching as he taught. Either way, the dilemma of Socrates was not should he continue to teach or not, but whether or not he should comply with his order to be executed.

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I think Socrates would agree with me when I say that he did not violate Athenian law by teaching as he taught. Either way, the dilemma of Socrates was not should he continue to teach or not, but whether or not he should comply with his order to be executed.

But the Committee had decreed that Socrates was forbidden to teach what he taught, and according the Athenian law, their decrees had the force of law. So, Socrates did, indeed violate Athenian law. And he admits as much in the Apology. Similarly, in recent times, Martin Luther King admitted that he had violated the ordinances of Birmingham, Alabama, and he spent some time in jail for that (see his Letter from a Birmingham Jail). But his defense was not that he had not violated the law, but that there was a "higher law" that he was obeying, that overrode the Birmingham ordinance. There is always the problem of why it is that Socrates thought it right to violate one law (that forbade him to teach) and yet argued it was wrong to violate the law by escaping his death.