Civil Disobedience

[Quatl]

I think we may have some obligation to justice (what ever that means) but I don't see any particular support for respect for law without evaluation.

It's easy enough for any of us to look over the various laws throughout history and fine some we think are unjust (we likely disagree as to which ones to one degree or another.) So I think we can easily agree that at least some law is unjust (thus immoral at least to the degree that we embrace justice as a moral good.) Non contradiction would indicate that if a law is immoral then obedience to the law is also immoral.

We may also choose to respect a particular law or set there of for other reasons than moral obligation, and many (most?) of us do so all the time. There are many laws that I obey only because my cost benefit analysis ends up assigning higher value to the results of compliance, than to the benefits of disobedience in these cases.

There are limits though. There are laws that have existed that would invalidate the government entirely in my view and I'd be forced by my moral emotions to either expatriate or revolt. All such laws of which I can conceive involve extreme violations of justice.

There is good pragmatic support for a principle of "apply only the least, effective force." Whereby one only responds with the minimum nessasary violence in defence of oneself. This can prevent unnecessary escalation in most cases. Some forms of civil dissobediance may quilify as an example, as would politics more generally.

I think that for me at least ,any "obligation to law" felt by me is not from the law at all, but is rather a result of either my respect for justice or an appeal to pragmatism.

[Doobah47]

Originally Posted by WorBlux

We also know that property rights exist and are empirically valid, because systems completely denying them have failed before being fully implemented.

That might be correct, although I have two questions:
1. How can you have determined that this current capitalist system has not failed?
2. At which point does the determining of theft as detrimental require a moral decision?

I'd like to draw your attention to this definition of 'ethical':

(of drugs) sold only upon medical prescription.

This is not strictly a moral version of ethics, it is a definition based on the medical safety and most medically trusted action - now that isn't morality. The doctors in question are not trying to prevent 'bad' or cause 'good', they are trying to cure illness and prolong life, nobody has to say that illness is 'bad' or that health is 'good', they are what they are, look up their definitions, and refrain from the frankly annoying use of morality in trying to determine whether some action should be legal or not, for inevitably extreme generalizations are made - in fact 'good' and 'bad' are extreme generalizations in any case, and perhaps one might be right in saying that laws and secular society should never be extreme in its process of ascertaining laws, at least for the benefit of those who accidentally commit crime - if we were extreme then there would be no such crime as manslaughter or negligence, one either murdered intentionally or not in an extreme legal system.

Laws would be better made with regards to empiricism, and perhaps made experimentally rather than founded in religious doctrine that does not account for financial equality (corporate 'crimes'), beneficial crime (Robin Hood) or detrimental law-abiding (nicotine addiction as opposed to moderate cannabis use).

[WorBlux]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Let's use your example, then. What if the thief steals from someone who has accumulated his wealth with unethical business practices? And then, what if our thief is a Robin Hood sort of fellow, and instead of asserting ownership over what he steals, he gives what he steals to the needy?

Let me first address Robin Hood, what he actually did compared to what most claim he did.

Robin hood took money by force from the tax collectors and their beneficiaries and returned the money to the people from who it had been originally taken. Ownership entails the right to defend property with force if necessary, and likewise to use force in recovery of stolen goods. Such rights can be delegated to other people. By returning money to those who were the original owners, taking only a large enough cut to stay in operation, Robin Hood was acting morally.

If Robin Hood had merely robbed from the rich to provide for the poor, then such an act would have been immoral.

As for the business with unethical practices, only money gained by force or fraud could be taken by force, and only for the purpose of returning it to it's owners. To use or dispose of it in any other way would be immoral and create a liability to the owners of the property.

Ownership includes the ability to give something away, so even stealing to give to the poor would necessitate the thief to claim ownership over the stolen property. (You can't give away something you don't claim ownership to)

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

That's a difficult argument to make. What of those systems which have thrived which do not recognize property rights? Feudalism did not fail before being implemented, instead it thrived all over the world for centuries.

Feudal lords did recognize property rights to a small degree (and to a great degree among themselves), but it is clear that humans lifted themselves out of poverty once they gained more universal recognition of their property rights and the emergence of a middle class.

[Didymos Thomas]

Let me first address Robin Hood, what he actually did compared to what most claim he did.

Robin hood took money by force from the tax collectors and their beneficiaries and returned the money to the people from who it had been originally taken. Ownership entails the right to defend property with force if necessary, and likewise to use force in recovery of stolen goods. Such rights can be delegated to other people. By returning money to those who were the original owners, taking only a large enough cut to stay in operation, Robin Hood was acting morally.

If Robin Hood had merely robbed from the rich to provide for the poor, then such an act would have been immoral.

First, no one delegated such right to the Robin Hood. Even then, I think you missed the point. Robin Hood robbed from the rich, and gave to the poor because the poor had been exploited by the rich. Thus, he was justified in recovering the property of the exploited.

Therefore, there are cases of blatant theft, punishable by law, which are, none the less, justifiable.

Ownership includes the ability to give something away, so even stealing to give to the poor would necessitate the thief to claim ownership over the stolen property. (You can't give away something you don't claim ownership to)

I think this boils down to convenient language. If we look at our example, the stolen money was not so much given away to anyone, but to people we assume to be victims, the rightful owners. Sure, the theif must possess the property, but not necessarily assume ownership.

Feudal lords did recognize property rights to a small degree (and to a great degree among themselves), but it is clear that humans lifted themselves out of poverty once they gained more universal recognition of their property rights and the emergence of a middle class.

Feudalism lasted far longer than modern capitalism has, and anything resembling property rights under feudalism have absolutely no relation to the property rights of modern liberal thought. If you are going to discount the successes of all past systems because at some point they failed, you are allowing yourself to be biased by the fact that liberal democracy is modern.

[WorBlux]

Originally Posted by Doobah47

That might be correct, although I have two questions:
1. How can you have determined that this current capitalist system has not failed?
2. At which point does the determining of theft as detrimental require a moral decision?

I'd like to draw your attention to this definition of 'ethical':

1. This current system is nowhere near pure capitalist, and even the most communistic governments there was a person who had the ability to exercise property rights over the means of production. Under a capitalist system there could be some sort of disaster, but certainly human life and happiness are possible under it. How long do you think a society where individuals could not even be sure of their ownership of the bread in their hand, could possibly survive. how long do you think farmers could raise wheat by needing to steal a tractor every time they wanted to plant, and a combine every time they wanted to harvest, how long would the combine run when no person could be sure if weather the maintainence applied to it would benefit them.

Even the most communistic writer admits that limited personal property rights, and property rights exercised by a selected council over communal property would be necessary for human survival.

2. It is when we determine ownership of property is a necessary condition of humans, than we can pass moral judgment on theft.

Originally Posted by Doobah47

This is not strictly a moral version of ethics, it is a definition based on the medical safety and most medically trusted action - now that isn't morality. The doctors in question are not trying to prevent 'bad' or cause 'good', they are trying to cure illness and prolong life, nobody has to say that illness is 'bad' or that health is 'good', they are what they are, look up their definitions,

Illness is the failure of an organism to act at 100% of the genetic potential of a specific organism or species. Health is how closely a organism is at carrying out the full genetic capacity of itself or it's species.

Biochemical reactions and medicine are far removed from the realm of conscious choices.

Also, what grounds could a doctor have for making a patient take a medicine that he did not want to do, unless in fact he considered health "good"

Originally Posted by Doobah47

and refrain from the frankly annoying use of morality in trying to determine whether some action should be legal or not, for inevitably extreme generalizations are made - in fact 'good' and 'bad' are extreme generalizations in any case, and perhaps one might be right in saying that laws and secular society should never be extreme in its process of ascertaining laws,

"should never...." Isn't that an extreme generalization? (you propose as an absolute for secular society, that secular society should not base laws on absolute principles) Since it is not possible to simultaneously use and not use absolute principles, one could never be right in saying such a thing.

Originally Posted by Doobah47

at least for the benefit of those who accidentally commit crime - if we were extreme then there would be no such crime as manslaughter or negligence, one either murdered intentionally or not in an extreme legal system.

Nowhere have I proposed a system of criminal law, only one of common law. If an act is immoral, then the person injured can bring forth a case to secure restitution. Certainly the amount of intention or negligence present in an action would affect the result.

If there is no complaint, then there is no case.

Originally Posted by Doobah47

Laws would be better made with regards to empiricism, and perhaps made experimentally rather than founded in religious doctrine that does not account for financial equality (corporate 'crimes'), beneficial crime (Robin Hood) or detrimental law-abiding (nicotine addiction as opposed to moderate cannabis use).

Perhaps so, but my principles are not religious in nature.

The problem with experimentally based law, is how can experiments be justified? A system that purposely subjects a person to a bad system to test the effectiveness of several systems, certainly can be logically known to be more detrimental than having a single good system. (I suggest a system based on natural and moral law without compromise of it's principles.) There is also the problem of all experimental data containing error and not being of immediate timeliness, and of people having continually changing behaviors and desires that may change the outcome of any system.

[WorBlux]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

First, no one delegated such right to the Robin Hood.

He made the assumption that the serfs would rather delegate such rights to him, then take the risk of recovering the money on themselves.

Just like you might assume a choking man would rather you violently squeeze his abdomen than allow him to continue choking.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Even then, I think you missed the point. Robin Hood robbed from the rich,

Read tax collectors, and the nobles who ordered the taxes collected (taxes R.H. believed to be unjustified.)

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Read: and gave to the poor because the poor had been exploited by the rich.

Read: And distributed the money to those whom it was stolen (taken unjustly) from

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Thus, he was justified in recovering the property of the exploited.

Read: Thus such action was moral.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Therefore, there are cases of blatant theft, punishable by law, which are, none the less, justifiable.

Justifiable because it is in agreement with natural moral law.

Proscribed law has nothing to do with morality.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

I think this boils down to convenient language. If we look at our example, the stolen money was not so much given away to anyone, but to people we assume to be victims, the rightful owners. Sure, the thief must possess the property, but not necessarily assume ownership.

The alleged thief must assume ownership only if he does not return the property to the rightful owner.

If I borrow you're computer with permission, it is in my possession. In order to give it away I must assume ownership (steal) it. If I walk up to a stranger, and say "take this it's yours now" i must also take up the reasoning "It's your's because it was mine and I want you to have it." In order to give something away I must pretend to have the right to give it away *ownership". The only way to avoid this is to walk back up to you when I'm done using the computer and say "Take this it's your's" and add "It's your because are the rightful owner, and that this was never rightfully mine to begin with"

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Feudalism lasted far longer than modern capitalism has, and anything resembling property rights under feudalism have absolutely no relation to the property rights of modern liberal thought. If you are going to discount the successes of all past systems because at some point they failed, you are allowing yourself to be biased by the fact that liberal democracy is modern.

If feudalism was equal to or better than modern system, does it not stand to reason that we would be much more reliant on feudal inventions for our quality of life, then on modern inventions? Quite obviously Feudalism is a clearly deficient method to organize a society.

And I don't really give a rat's behind about liberal democracy, because truth cannot be determined by a consensus of the majority. i do believe that such a system will fail, but it is specifically the fact of weather or not the ownership of property is a necessary characteristic of man that determines the morality of theft.

It is not possible that a society based on the complete denial of property rights could succeed even for a generation.

And denying some people property rights and affirming property rights of some others cannot be moral, since when applied to all people, is not consistent or empirically supported. (There is no major biological or intrinsic difference between the two classes of people such a system attempts to create)

[Didymos Thomas]

He made the assumption that the serfs would rather delegate such rights to him, then take the risk of recovering the money on themselves.

Just like you might assume a choking man would rather you violently squeeze his abdomen than allow him to continue choking.

You want to quote some text to show that he assumed anyone would delegate any right to him? I do not think so. Just like your choking man, there is no need to even consider rights. There is simply the right thing to do. Robin Hood, a character in a feudal society, would not have any concept of individual rights. Much less would he assume that such a right, of which he has no concept, was delegated to him.

Read tax collectors, and the nobles who ordered the taxes collected (taxes R.H. believed to be unjustified.)
ead: And distributed the money to those whom it was stolen (taken unjustly) from
Read: Thus such action was moral.

So we have a case in which theft is justified. Therefore, theft is not always immoral. Theft can, depending upon circumstances, be moral.

Justifiable because it is in agreement with natural moral law.

Proscribed law has nothing to do with morality.

If the prescribed law is in agreement with natural moral law, and therefore justified, obviously prescribed law has something to do with morality.

The alleged thief must assume ownership only if he does not return the property to the rightful owner.

Right, meaning Robin Hood, or any similar thief, does not assume ownership when he steals, nor does he assume ownership when returning property to the serfs.

If feudalism was equal to or better than modern system, does it not stand to reason that we would be much more reliant on feudal inventions for our quality of life, then on modern inventions? Quite obviously Feudalism is a clearly deficient method to organize a society.

No, I do not think so. Again, this seems to be a bias of modernity more than anything else. Of course technology is more advanced today than it was 1000 years ago, but I do not see how technological advancement points to a more successful form of government.

It is not possible that a society based on the complete denial of property rights could succeed even for a generation

Cuba, if you like a modern example. For a generation, even with a US embargo, the island nation has managed to handle it's own affairs. You may object, but consider this, despite the many faults of the Cuban regime (I'm no friend of that government), for 50 years the Cubans have been without war. The western liberal democracies have been bogged down in constant war for 50 years.

Cuba aside, it is naive to say that without property rights, a society cannot stand a generation. Obviously, this is false. Again, feudalism in medieval Europe, and in China, all without property rights, lasting for centuries.

And denying some people property rights and affirming property rights of some others cannot be moral, since when applied to all people, is not consistent or empirically supported. (There is no major biological or intrinsic difference between the two classes of people such a system attempts to create)

What property rights? You said that "property rights exist and are empirically valid, because systems completely denying them have failed before being fully implemented". However, systems completely denying property rights have also succeeded for centuries.

Now let me ask you this - today we supposedly have property rights; however, few people own property (land). Property rights seem to be the gift of a few with money; surely this is not consistent, and as you point out, there is no biological or intrinsic difference between the classes. So why do some have property rights, and others left out?

[WorBlux]

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

You want to quote some text to show that he assumed anyone would delegate any right to him? I do not think so. Just like your choking man, there is no need to even consider rights. There is simply the right thing to do. Robin Hood, a character in a feudal society, would not have any concept of individual rights. Much less would he assume that such a right, of which he has no concept, was delegated to him.

You would certainly be bewildered, if the chocking man did not thank you after saving his life, correct?

There are many different versions of the tale, and the thanks of the poor could have been enough to validate his assumption of tax collectors and nobles dependent on them were unjustly taxing the poor, (sometimes on the principle of tax alone, sometimes on the principle of the tax not being authorized by king Richard)

Furthermore, common law was codified in 1154 that relied on local previous custom. Property was understood to exist in a pre-enlightenment age, albeit in a cruder form. Like gravity was understood to exist before Galileo studied it, but in a less accurate manner.

also in some of the stories, Robin hood was himself an ex-noble, and is such case would be educated and familiar with basic concepts of property.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

So we have a case in which theft is justified. Therefore, theft is not always immoral. Theft can, depending upon circumstances, be moral.

If you mean.. Theft as in taking something without permission from someone else's possession,then yes. Theft as in taking property from it's rightful owner without consent, then no.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

If the prescribed law is in agreement with natural moral law, and therefore justified, obviously prescribed law has something to do with morality.

Merely coincidental. The full form of the proscribed law states, it is wrong to steal unless you are the king or have a bigger army than the king does.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Right, meaning Robin Hood, or any similar thief, does not assume ownership when he steals, nor does he assume ownership when returning property to the serfs.

yes, exactly, and this avoids the contradiction that causes theft to not be a moral principle

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

No, I do not think so. Again, this seems to be a bias of modernity more than anything else. Of course technology is more advanced today than it was 1000 years ago, but I do not see how technological advancement points to a more successful form of government.

1000 years ago the rate of technological development was almost flat and at zero. Today technology is increasing at an increasing rate, leading to a doubling of the average lifespan in Europe. If that's not a form of success, what is?

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

Cuba, if you like a modern example. For a generation, even with a US embargo, the island nation has managed to handle it's own affairs. You may object, but consider this, despite the many faults of the Cuban regime (I'm no friend of that government), for 50 years the Cubans have been without war. The western liberal democracies have been bogged down in constant war for 50 years.

Cuba aside, it is naive to say that without property rights, a society cannot stand a generation. Obviously, this is false. Again, feudalism in medieval Europe, and in China, all without property rights, lasting for centuries.

Fuedalism/ communisim are based on the denial and forcefully reallocation of some property rights (all governments are) but is not based on complete denial of all property rights.

Property rights being a man's claim to the right of use of a particular thing to satisfy his values. Property being such things that a man claims.

In the case of Cuba, Castro did not deny all property rights, he denied the rights from persons withing the country and re-directed such claims on capital goods to himself by the use of systematized violence.

And even then people of Cuba are allowed forms of personal property as a motivation to work.

Originally Posted by Didymos Thomas

What property rights? You said that "property rights exist and are empirically valid, because systems completely denying them have failed before being fully implemented". However, systems completely denying property rights have also succeeded for centuries.

Now let me ask you this - today we supposedly have property rights; however, few people own property (land). Property rights seem to be the gift of a few with money; surely this is not consistent, and as you point out, there is no biological or intrinsic difference between the classes. So why do some have property rights, and others left out?

The theory of property rights states that a man can claim things as property though contract or first use, and then can morally use such things in accordance to his values, and that such a claim if made would be moral. It does not state that such a claim must be made in order for a man to be moral, and it does not state that a person must defend these claims, only that if they choose to defend such claims it would be moral.

[WorBlux]

Back to the original topic of civil disobedience.

If...the machine of government...is of such a nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law.
Henry David Thoreau

That is whenever following the law would cause you to break natural moral law, then it it is justified to break such a law.

As an example... if the law requires you to march off to unjust war, do not take one step.

[de Silentio]

That is whenever following the law would cause you to break natural moral law, then it it is justified to break such a law.

What if the law and the moral law are one in the same, like in Social Contract Theory?