Civil Disobedience

[Didymos Thomas]

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.

Hmm, yes, basically, you're right. As I recall the committee order him to stop corruption the youth, and of course, Socrates did not think his teaching corrupted the youth.

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.

Classic example of civil disobedience.

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.

Wouldn't this be classic civil disobedience? He willingly and openly violated a law he thought to be wrong because he thought he should violate the law and teach. However, he accepted his punishment from the state because he was obligated to do so - if he does not face his punishment willingly, he endorses anarchy and abandons the principles which drove him to teach, despite his order to not teach.

So, maybe the issue isn't which obligation is stronger. If we disobey the law on principle, and then avoid punishment, have we abandon the principle which drove us to break the law initially?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Wouldn't this be classic civil disobedience? He willingly and openly violated a law he thought to be wrong because he thought he should violate the law and teach. However, he accepted his punishment from the state because he was obligated to do so - if he does not face his punishment willingly, he endorses anarchy and abandons the principles which drove him to teach, despite his order to not teach.

So, maybe the issue isn't which obligation is stronger. If we disobey the law on principle, and then avoid punishment, have we abandon the principle which drove us to break the law initially?

But the fact remains that Socrates intentionally violated the law in the first instance by teaching, but refused to violate the law in the second instance, by not escaping. Whether he "made up" for violating the law is really not to the point. He should not have violated the law if he thought it was wrong to do so. You don't make it all right to violate a law by accepting punishment for doing so. (It would be absurd to argue that it was all right to murder someone as long as I accepted punishment for doing so).

Socrates's justification for violating the law (justification, not excuse) was that there was a higher law which he was obligated to obey. Namely that he was commanded by the gods to teach. But, Socrates has no such justification for escaping. (And that is exactly what Martin Luther King writes in his Letter. He is obeying a higher law than the civil ordinances of Birmingham.

[Didymos Thomas]

But the fact remains that Socrates intentionally violated the law in the first instance by teaching, but refused to violate the law in the second instance, by not escaping. Whether he "made up" for violating the law is really not to the point. He should not have violated the law if he thought it was wrong to do so. You don't make it all right to violate a law by accepting punishment for doing so. (It would be absurd to argue that it was all right to murder someone as long as I accepted punishment for doing so).

Of course you do not "make up" for violating a law by accepting the punishment. But as you said, the issue was a matter of which obligation was stronger, the obligation to break the law, or the obligation to obey the law.

As for Socrates, why would his higher law obligate him to break some law, and then accept death; why would his higher law have him act against the state's decision, and then embrace the state's decision that his initial action, disobeying the state, was worthy of a death sentence? Wasn't one of the complaints that Socrates' teaching was heretical?

This higher power appeal seems to demand a higher power that cannot make up it's mind. The result, I fear, are some contradictory obligations to that higher power and to the state. How can a higher law justify obedience to a state that is worth disobeying?

[kennethamy]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Of course you do not "make up" for violating a law by accepting the punishment. But as you said, the issue was a matter of which obligation was stronger, the obligation to break the law, or the obligation to obey the law.

As for Socrates, why would his higher law obligate him to break some law, and then accept death; why would his higher law have him act against the state's decision, and then embrace the state's decision that his initial action, disobeying the state, was worthy of a death sentence? Wasn't one of the complaints that Socrates' teaching was heretical?

This higher power appeal seems to demand a higher power that cannot make up it's mind. The result, I fear, are some contradictory obligations to that higher power and to the state. How can a higher law justify obedience to a state that is worth disobeying?

There is not merely the general obligation to obey the law, but the obligation to obey some particular law. There is no obligation, so far as I can tell, to break the law. (Maybe anarchists think there is such an obligation. I don't know).

I don't really know what you are asking when you ask why a higher law would obligate Socrates to disobey another law. I suppose the answer to that is that when two laws conflict, it is the obligation to obey the higher law that overrides the obligation to obey the lesser law. Who "embraced" the decision that his disobedience of the law was worthy of a death sentence? I don't recall any discussion of that in the dialogues. I just think that Socrates held that he had no good moral reason to disobey the law when he was sentenced to death. So that his obligation to obey the law in the case took precedence.

I don't understand your last question. Obviously, if we have a higher obligation to disobey a particular law, then that would override our general obligation to obey the law. The question of whether the Athenian State was "worth disobeying" never comes up. It is assumed that we have an obligation to obey the laws of the State. The only question is whether Socrates also has an obligation to escape, and, if so, is it a stronger obligation than his obligation to obey the laws of Athens. In Crito, Socrates considers various arguments for escaping and comes to the conclusion that none of them are (even together) sufficient to make the case that he ought to disobey the law that sentences him to death, so that his obligation to obey the law is stronger than any obligation he has to escape, and, so, disobey the law.

[Doobah47]

When governments outlaw natural substances then that is the time to rebel.
When they outlaw activities its probably for the good.
However governments consistently break their own laws; they allow rape of underage kids with cigarettes because they can't understand how to entice a kid to learn without indoctrinating them and forcing them to rebel. They commit murder consistently in the name of protection and conquest. So when the government breaks it's own laws then it's time to rebel.
Another time to rebel is when some f*cker decides he wants a road there so he can drive his car at eighty miles an hour on his way to make some cash.

Civil disobedience is just. Restricting hedonism is unjust, but it's got to be done because some people are far too naughty.

and before you say wtf? rape and cigarettes?? I'll point you to the famous Lucky Strike brand, decode the name and you come up with LUST and yaSukker

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

The term was coined by HD Thoreau to describe public disobedience for laws considered unjust.

Uniform to acts of civil disobedience is some notion of a moral responsibility to disobey some law or directive. The objective is usually to communicate some message, namely that the law being disobeyed is unjust or wrong.

So, is civil disobedience acceptable? and if so, under what conditions?

The central point is that positive law is not moral law, and the existence of morality would dictate that we have an obligation to abide by our morals. If there exists morality, then we must obey this moral law, even if it conflicts with existing positive law.

In the end, it is not so much whether civil disobedience is acceptable, it is that acting against moral law is unacceptable.

Of course I was very careful to avoid just what these moral obligations are (or even if they exist) because that is an entirely different question.

[Doobah47]

We dont have an obligation to our government, our government has an obligation to us.

[Didymos Thomas]

The central point is that positive law is not moral law, and the existence of morality would dictate that we have an obligation to abide by our morals. If there exists morality, then we must obey this moral law, even if it conflicts with existing positive law.

Are there no examples of moral, positive law? What about law giving access to education, or laws that guarantee a living wage?

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Are there no examples of moral, positive law? What about law giving access to education, or laws that guarantee a living wage?

If positive law correlates with moral law, it is only coincidental.

[Didymos Thomas]

Perhaps, however we can be sure that positive law can be moral law. Why are such cases purely coincidental?

Are moral laws, which happen to be positive (guaranteeing access to education or a living wage, perhaps), moral for some reason, and negative moral laws moral for some other reason, or simply for their agreement with what is moral?