The moral imperative, civil disobedience (part3)

[Hooboy !!]

"Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right." source (http://thoreau.eserver.org/civil1.html)

What is Thoreau saying here? Simply put, everyone needs to march the beat of their own drummer. I actually agree with this. It would be the worst kind of transgression were a person to sacrifice their principles for the sake of expediency. The problem, of course, is that not everyone sees the world in exactly the same way. We are constantly in competition with each other for every thing, including how we should govern ourselves, or at all.

One consistent thing throughout the centuries has been that we have chosen some form of governance instead of anarchy. There are those that would prefer anarchy, but they are a minority. But, we all must live in communities, more or less, and as a result, compromises must be made.

When the Jews were forced into exile in Babylon and their temple destroyed, they had to learn how to preserve their cultural and religious identity while residing as foreigners. They were largely successful. Despite the differences, possibly even contradictions, in local customs and laws. They risked being treated like outcasts and being persecuted for being different. In fact, in Europe, they were systematically slaughtered for seeking to preserve their identity. This is a pretty good demonstration how it is possible to stay true to your principles, but it is also a pretty good demonstration of the social friction that it can create.

When Jesus came along, he altered the Jewish world view and compelled his followers to render "Caesar's things unto Caesar and God's things to God." That's some pretty good advice.

There was a story recently about some British military personnel that were arrested by the Iranians and forced to make public comments. I do not for one minute believe anything that they said. So, why did they say the things they said?

It is possible to make concessions without necessarily compromising our principles. It becomes a matter of priorities and a recurring priority for the vast majority of people is a stable and just society. This does not happen by accident and not without a lot of pooled community resources.

For me, this is the single most important priority. Without a stable and just society, nothing else is possible. I am not however, interested in supporting just any form of governance.

The moral imperative

"Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it." -- Thoreau

The moral imperative for civil disobedience comes from a belief that the society we live in is neither stable and/or just. It would be ludicrous, for example, to feel justified to perform an act of civil disobedience over something trivial, considering that the goals of "stable" and "just" rely specifically on the rule of law. The problem is a matter of perspective.

The civil rights movement is a pretty good example of how there can be vastly different points of view on the issue of "just". Clearly, the white majority was pretty happy with the American society as it was. Their bigotry did not allow them see how unjust life was for the black minority however. Eventually, the black minority felt compelled to cross the line from lawful to unlawful, risking a stable society in order to achieve justness.

Were they right or wrong for violating the tenet of preserving a stable society? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It does not really matter to me. For me, it is not an issue of what is moral. It is an issue of human behavior and how they interact with society in general. Or, in a word... governance.

Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society. It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed. On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral. The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.

Should all acts of civil disobedience be avoided?

Throughout this discussion, there has been a recurring question... When is civil disobedience justified? The misconception is that the answer is: Whenever it is morally justified. But, if civil disobedience is intrinsically immoral, this seems like civil disobedience would never be justified. This is not true.

The problem as I see it, is that people are too hung up on the concept of what is and what is not moral. Thoreau was very close. He is right in that we all have a conscience and that we should never allow our conscience to be dictated to us. But, he either never learned, or had forgotten the lessons learned by the Jews while living as strangers in a strange land, and how to render unto Caesar.

It is simply impossible to live a life never sacrificing our principles or making compromises. It is the price we pay for living with others, who do not share our world view, especially if we possess the minority view.

It is possible to maintain the integrity of our conscience internally, while doing what is expedient to preserve our life, our dignity, our way of life, whatever. The blacks did it for a long time in this country. The Jews in Europe too. With some pretty horrible consequences.

People keep asking me if Martin Luther King Jr was wrong for what he did. I do not know the answer to that question. I cannot know. Only he can answer it. I believe he acted immorally by violating rule of law, of a society designed and proven to allow social change. But, I cannot say that I blame him, nor do I think that he wished it were as it were, and preferred to have been able to achieve the justness he clearly needed without resorting to civil disobedience. But, that is the sign of greatness. The ability to make hard choices and to put aside what is easy to do what must be done.

I think this is what separates MLK Jr from the contemporary political activist. He did what he felt he must, with regret. The ones that do it out of juvenile rebelliousness, raging aginst the machine, disrespecting the hard work and sacrifices done by those that came before.

It is much harder to build something, than it is to tear it down.

[RED DAVE]

From Hooboy !!:
The moral imperative for civil disobedience comes from a belief that the society we live in is neither stable and/or just.And where did you get that crap? How about a source?

From Hooboy !!:
It would be ludicrous, for example, to feel justified to perform an act of civil disobedience over something trivial, considering that the goals of "stable" and "just" rely specifically on the rule of law. The problem is a matter of perspective.Civil disobedience is not usually done about something trivial. In my experience, it has encompassed issues such as civil rights, civil liberties, the rights of labor, war, ecology, etc. Hardly trivial.

From Hooboy !!:
The civil rights movement is a pretty good example of how there can be vastly different points of view on the issue of "just". Clearly, the white majority was pretty happy with the American society as it was. Their bigotry did not allow them see how unjust life was for the black minority however. Eventually, the black minority felt compelled to cross the line from lawful to unlawful, risking a stable society in order to achieve justness.Not so. You are assuming that every act of civil disobedience threatens a stable society. Quite the contrary: injustice, such as the public practice of racism, threatens stability.

From Hooboy !!:
Were they right or wrong for violating the tenet of preserving a stable society?We were right.

From Hooboy !!:
Perhaps. Perhaps not. It does not really matter to me.Oh, so the public practice of racism is a matter of indifference to you. Cute.

From Hooboy !!:
For me, it is not an issue of what is moral. It is an issue of human behavior and how they interact with society in general. Or, in a word... governance.In other words, you believe people should suffer injustice for the sake of stablity. Easy to say.

From Hooboy !!:
Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society.Or it could be a violation of an unstable society. In my vie, the USA under Jim Crow was far from stable. What is was was repressed and subdued, which is not stable.

From Hooboy !!:
It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed.Oh, no! Not a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed! Not that! Anything but that.

From Hooboy !!:
On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral.According to you. If you think you've proved that, think again.

From Hooboy !!:
The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.The short answer is that you don't know how to reason. But we knew that.

From Hooboy !!:
Should all acts of civil disobedience be avoided?According to you they should.

From Hooboy !!:
Throughout this discussion, there has been a recurring question... When is civil disobedience justified?According to you, apparently, never.

From Hooboy !!:
The misconception is that the answer is: Whenever it is morally justified. But, if civil disobedience is intrinsically immoral, this seems like civil disobedience would never be justified. This is not true.But it's only intrinsically immoral to you, Hooboy !!

From Hooboy !!:
The problem as I see it, is that people are too hung up on the concept of what is and what is not moral. Thoreau was very close. He is right in that we all have a conscience and that we should never allow our conscience to be dictated to us. But, he either never learned, or had forgotten the lessons learned by the Jews while living as strangers in a strange land, and how to render unto Caesar.We Jews rendered unto Caesar back before the Diaspora because we were forced to by an occupying army. I find it bizarre that you would even think to use that as an example.

From Hooboy !!:
It is simply impossible to live a life never sacrificing our principles or making compromises. It is the price we pay for living with others, who do not share our world view, especially if we possess the minority view.Sure, that's true. However, there comes a point where civil disobedience, even rebellion, is a moral imperative. For instance, the slaves prior to the Civil War had a moral right, if you want to put it that way, to rebel. And Whites who helped, like John Brown, surely had the moral high ground.

From Hooboy !!:
It is possible to maintain the integrity of our conscience internally, while doing what is expedient to preserve our life, our dignity, our way of life, whatever.Maybe for some people.

From Hooboy !!:
The blacks did it for a long time in this country.What the fuck are you talking about? Black people engaged in constant protest in whatever forms they could sustain, ranging from sabotage to rebellion. You don't know what you're talking about, as usual.

From Hooboy !!:
The Jews in Europe too. With some pretty horrible consequences.That's right. Jews conformed an tolerated antisemitism, with results we know.

From Hooboy !!:
People keep asking me if Martin Luther King Jr was wrong for what he did. I do not know the answer to that question.Whay am I not surprised?

From Hooboy !!:
I cannot know.That's called moral evasion.

From Hooboy !!:
Only he can answer it.Dr. King answered it for himself and for those of us who chose to follow or identify with him.

From Hooboy !!:
I believe he acted immorally by violating rule of law, of a society designed and proven to allow social change.I'll bet you do.

From Hooboy !!:
But, I cannot say that I blame him, nor do I think that he wished it were as it were, and preferred to have been able to achieve the justness he clearly needed without resorting to civil disobedience. But, that is the sign of greatness. The ability to make hard choices and to put aside what is easy to do what must be done.True.

From Hooboy !!:
I think this is what separates MLK Jr from the contemporary political activist. He did what he felt he must, with regret. The ones that do it out of juvenile rebelliousness, raging aginst the machine, disrespecting the hard work and sacrifices done by those that came before.Funny, that's exactly what they said about us back then: criminal anarchists, etc.

From Hooboy !!:
It is much harder to build something, than it is to tear it down.True enough. And the hardest thing to build is an enduring structure of freedom.

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

Not so. You are assuming that every act of civil disobedience threatens a stable society. Quite the contrary: injustice, such as the public practice of racism, threatens stability.
It depends on the number of people in the minority. Systemic, pervasive racism is no threat to the stability of society, if the ruling majority sufficiently outnumbers the minority. Force is a commodity too.

We Jews rendered unto Caesar back before the Diaspora because we were forced to by an occupying army. I find it bizarre that you would even think to use that as an example... That's right. Jews conformed an tolerated
Actually, Jews were not always "forced" to conform. They learned how to conform while under oppression then used this skill to prosper throughout Europe, even while being persecuted by the Christians, with a tremendous amount of success. All while never sacrificing their cultural, ethnic, and religious identity. Pretty impressive example of how to be tolerant of very different points of view, even ones that would like to see you dead.

[laughing dog]

The OP can only make sense if one takes as a definition of moral to mean obeying the laws of society, regardless of the moral basis of those laws. In my opinion, that is an immoral definition. Obedience to an unjust law is immoral. Thomas Jefferson's motto was "Resistence to tyranny is obedience to God." - he had it right.

[laughing dog]

Actually, Jews were not always "forced" to conform. They learned how to conform while under oppression then used this skill to prosper throughout Europe, even while being persecuted by the Christians, with a tremendous amount of success. All while never sacrificing their cultural, ethnic, and religious identity. Pretty impressive example of how to be tolerant of very different points of view, even ones that would like to see you dead.
They learned how to conform to avoid death. That is "coercion" and "terrorism" according to your definition.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Not so. You are assuming that every act of civil disobedience threatens a stable society. Quite the contrary: injustice, such as the public practice of racism, threatens stability.From Hooboy !!:
It depends on the number of people in the minority. Systemic, pervasive racism is no threat to the stability of society, if the ruling majority sufficiently outnumbers the minority. Force is a commodity too.And might makes right, right Hooboy !!?

So, I guess the only problem is that some of those pesky minorities are just to big to repress. I guess they can't all be Native Americans, can they?

From RED DAVE:
We Jews rendered unto Caesar back before the Diaspora because we were forced to by an occupying army. I find it bizarre that you would even think to use that as an example...From Hooboy!!:
That's right. Jews conformed an tolerated
Actually, Jews were not always "forced" to conform. They learned how to conform while under oppression then used this skill to prosper throughout Europe, even while being persecuted by the Christians, with a tremendous amount of success. All while never sacrificing their cultural, ethnic, and religious identity. Pretty impressive example of how to be tolerant of very different points of view, even ones that would like to see you dead.Let me tell you, bubbeleh, we Jews were not very tolerant of very different points of view that would like to wipe us out. We endured, but tolerance was not this issue, it was survival. Revolt would have meant mass murder, which was done every once in awhile anyway.

And as soon as Jews could get into the rebellions in Europe we did so. Still do, pretty often. And a fair number of us have been involved in civil disobedience in this country. Schwerner and Goodman, for example, were both Jews. As were Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin and Mark Rudd.

RED DAVE

[thefugitivesaint]

I will retort this at length later. But, for the sake of brevity, i will address one of the central contradications in your assertion.

Hooboy!:Were they right or wrong for violating the tenet of preserving a stable society? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It does not really matter to me. For me, it is not an issue of what is moral. It is an issue of human behavior and how they interact with society in general. Or, in a word... governance.

But, lying at the heart of the matter IS strongly contested ethical/moral principles. Our ideas of a "just" form of "governance" is predicated on our ethical/moral worldviews. (i.e. To include the protective rights of individuals necessitates a commitment to protect the rights of individuals in the established government).

When you say : For me, this is the single most important priority. Without a stable and just society, nothing else is possible

You are making an ethical/moral decision. You value "stability" and it could be assumed, for the sake of this debate, that a stable society is a "just" society. But, if this value is challenged, if "stability" is upset, would this not indicate that society is not entirely "just"? (Do you think minorities challange powerfully entrenched majorities on mere whim?) If you preclude the fact of friction in socio-political ends in the defense of "stability" then you are merely arguing for authoritarianism. There is no "justness", to use your term, in such a society. In placing undue emphasis and commitment to an ideal that arguably favors any State, you ignore the reality of actual political processes and the biases of Power.

But, having said this, you then state that:

Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society. It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed. On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral. The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.


thus making another moral/ethical argument and then proceeding to make absolutist assertions.

CD does not set out to challenge "..the very fabric of society..", it sets out to alter that fabric by altering the manner in which it is governed. Your equation of "civil disobedience" to nihilism in the previous thread is simply being repeated here. It was unfounded then and it remains so. CD does not reject "rule of law" as a whole but it does reject absolute obedience. Your inability to see this difference only compounds your confused argumentation.

Hooboy!:
People keep asking me if Martin Luther King Jr was wrong for what he did. I do not know the answer to that question. I cannot know. Only he can answer it. I believe he acted immorally by violating rule of law, of a society designed and proven to allow social change. But, I cannot say that I blame him, nor do I think that he wished it were as it were, and preferred to have been able to achieve the justness he clearly needed without resorting to civil disobedience.

Embedded in this paragraph is the perfect example of my essential point.

MLK, Jr. "violated rule of law" and he did so even though he "...preferred to have been able to achieve the justness he clearly needed without resorting to civil disobedience." Why then, did MLK, Jr. have to face such a "hard choice" if his plea for redress was being committed in a society that had "...proven to allow social change"? What social obstacles did King face when choosing between your "proven" path and CD? Why did MLK, Jr. feel the need to resort to an prolonged campaing of CD? Was it the lynchings? Was it the close ties of local law officials and racist organizations like the Klu Klux Klan (who DID commit hundreds of acts of terrorism including murder)? Was it the federal governments participation in Cointelpro, labelling MLk, Jr. as a communist and a terrorist and its refusal to maintain the standards of its own laws? The legacy of Jim Crow? At what point did Kings legal comprehension fail him and his "immoral" urge to violate the "rule of law" possess him?

By your own argument, if the system of "governance" that was in place during King's existence was functioning in the manner you have asserted then there was no reason for King (and hundreds of others before and after him) to resort to CD. The fact that CD was used demonstrates that the "stability" you so esteem was absent and that society was not "just". The "rule of law" was threatened, not by those who demanded equality under the existing system but by those who refused to allow equal participation to happen. It was those in power who excluded and marginalized, using outright terror and bureaucracy, those who were seeking change. You ignore context, the violence of the State and the inherent problem of defering to "proper authority" in your defense of "stability" (which might as well be refered to as "stagnation", like a pond, it is "stable" but hardly fit for life outside of leeches).

I'll provide a more thorough and detailed objection at a later time.
-theSaint

[Samhain]

First, you must demonstrate how civil disobedience is an intrinsically immoral action. Until you do that there's really no reason to continue the discussion at all. Good luck with that.

[RED DAVE]

It was those in power who excluded and marginalized, using outright terror and bureaucracy, those who were seeking change. You ignore context, the violence of the State and the inherent problem of defering to "proper authority" in your defense of "stability" (which might as well be refered to as "stagnation", like a pond, it is "stable" but hardly fit for life outside of leeches).Precisely. It seems inconceivable for Hooboy !!, although he denies this, that the state can be truly immoral. He has said in the #2 thread that, fundamentally, he trusts the Establishment and, by extension, the state.

This is, of course, why he has been led by the nose by Bush and Co. about the War in Iraq and is one of the few true believers in the war left around here.

RED DAVE

[Preno]

Were they right or wrong for violating the tenet of preserving a stable society? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It does not really matter to me. For me, it is not an issue of what is moral. It is an issue of human behavior and how they interact with society in general. Or, in a word... governance.

Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society. It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed. On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral. The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.Huh? :huh:

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

What is Thoreau saying here? Simply put, everyone needs to march the beat of their own drummer. I actually agree with this. It would be the worst kind of transgression were a person to sacrifice their principles for the sake of expediency.

Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society. It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed. On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral. The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.

So marching to the tune of one's own band is something you actually don't agree with, and sacrificing one's principles for expediency is not the worst transgression possible.


Folks, it doesn't get any better than this.

Throughout this discussion, there has been a recurring question... When is civil disobedience justified? The misconception is that the answer is: Whenever it is morally justified. But, if civil disobedience is intrinsically immoral, this seems like civil disobedience would never be justified. This is not true.

[From here. (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=207410)]
The way I see it, civil disobedience has been completely corrupted over the years to the point where it is no longer used as a form of protest or as a way of communicating a message. It is used almost exclusively to shout down opposing points of view, or points of view that people find distasteful. It is no longer used to draw attention to a cause, but is rather used to intimidate and silence opposition. Always behind the protest is the threat of violence, or disruption, of property damage.

This is not democracy in action. It is terrorism.
[emphasis mine]

I stand corrected. It does get better than the previous example!

The problem as I see it, is that people are too hung up on the concept of what is and what is not moral. Thoreau was very close. He is right in that we all have a conscience and that we should never allow our conscience to be dictated to us. But, he either never learned, or had forgotten the lessons learned by the Jews while living as strangers in a strange land, and how to render unto Caesar.

It is simply impossible to live a life never sacrificing our principles or making compromises. It is the price we pay for living with others, who do not share our world view, especially if we possess the minority view.


It would be the worst kind of transgression were a person to sacrifice their principles for the sake of expediency.

Hooboy !! debates himself in his own OP, and battles to a draw.

It is possible to maintain the integrity of our conscience internally, while doing what is expedient to preserve our life, our dignity, our way of life, whatever.

This OP is a gold mine.

The blacks did it for a long time in this country. The Jews in Europe too. With some pretty horrible consequences.

Yeah, like losing their dignity, way of life, and then their lives.

Hooboy !!, thou art most aptly named.

People keep asking me if Martin Luther King Jr was wrong for what he did. I do not know the answer to that question. I cannot know. Only he can answer it.


I believe he acted immorally by violating rule of law, of a society designed and proven to allow social change.

Pardon me, but doesn't immoral mean wrong?

im·mor·al http://cache.lexico.com/g/d/premium.gif http://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pnghttp://cache.lexico.com/g/d/speaker.gif (https://secure.reference.com/premium/login.html?rd=2&u=http%3A%2F%2Fdictionary.reference.com%2Fbrowse%2Fimmoral) /ɪˈmɔrhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngəl, ɪˈmɒr-/ Pronunciation Key (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/) - Show Spelled Pronunciation (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/)[i-mawr-uhhttp://cache.lexico.com/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngl, i-mor-] Pronunciation Key (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/) - Show IPA Pronunciation (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/)
–adjective 1.violating moral principles; not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics. 2.licentious or lascivious.

Pretty sure...let's check the synonyms...

—Synonyms bad, wicked, dissolute, dissipated,

More sure...
profligate. Immoral, abandoned, depraved describe one who makes no attempt to curb self-indulgence. Immoral, referring to conduct, applies to one who acts contrary to or does not obey or conform to standards of morality; it may also mean licentious and perhaps dissipated. Abandoned, referring to condition, applies to one hopelessly, and usually passively, sunk in wickedness and unrestrained appetites. Depraved, referring to character, applies to one who voluntarily seeks evil and viciousness. Immoral, amoral, nonmoral, and unmoral are sometimes confused with one another. Immoral means not moral and connotes evil or licentious behavior.

I'm pretty sure that "evil" counts as "wrong", at least in the moral sense. Or, well, in any sense.

Thank you, and good night.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's get to the ultimate flaw of your argument.

People keep asking me if Martin Luther King Jr was wrong for what he did. I do not know the answer to that question. I cannot know. Only he can answer it. I believe he acted immorally by violating rule of law, of a society designed and proven to allow social change. Fine, we'll ignore Martin Luther King Jr. because America was so open to gradual (over a century) social change.

Let's talk Nelson Mandela. Not nearly as peaceful disobedience from Nelson Mandela. Was he wrong to oppose the government, where it can not be argued that social chance was possible in a nation where apartheid was the rule of law? Or should the South Africans have just adapted to their squaller?

[Hooboy !!]

You are making an ethical/moral decision. You value "stability" and it could be assumed, for the sake of this debate, that a stable society is a "just" society.
No, it is not a moral issue. It is a pragmatic issue. And, no... a stable society is not necessarily a just society.

[Hooboy !!]

Precisely. It seems inconceivable for Hooboy !!, although he denies this, that the state can be truly immoral. He has said in the #2 thread that, fundamentally, he trusts the Establishment and, by extension, the state.
If you had been paying attention, youl would also have read my point on the subjectivity of morality. Where does the moral authority come from? The answer is: The majority. In a democratic society, the establishment is always moral, because it represents the majority view.

The problem as I see it are people who seem to think that there is some kind of objective morality. The notion is absurd.

[Hooboy !!]

<snip>
You know what? This is a red herring. I have addresed this question a very long time ago.

[Jimmy Higgins]

You know what? This is a red herring. I have addresed this question a very long time ago.A red herring? Where did you address the issue of Nelson Mandela's terrorism/civil disobedience? I'd like to read it.

[laughing dog]

If you had been paying attention, youl would also have read my point on the subjectivity of morality. Where does the moral authority come from? The answer is: The majority. In a democratic society, the establishment is always moral, because it represents the majority view. We are now in the realm of private language - a redefinition of moral.

However, rather than focus on the bark on the trees, the OP is fundamentally self-contradictory:

Originally Posted by Hooboy !! http://www.iidb.org/vbb/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?p=4476751#post4476751)
Were they right or wrong for violating the tenet of preserving a stable society? Perhaps. Perhaps not. It does not really matter to me. For me, it is not an issue of what is moral. It is an issue of human behavior and how they interact with society in general. Or, in a word... governance.

Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society. It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed. On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral. The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.



The problem as I see it are people who seem to think that there is some kind of objective morality. The notion is absurd. I think it is a little less absurd than an internally inconsistent position based on a private language.

[Hooboy !!]

A red herring? Where did you address the issue of Nelson Mandela's terrorism/civil disobedience? I'd like to read it.
My very first post in this thread where I discuss what is and what is not a legitimate government.

[laughing dog]

My very first post in this thread where I discuss what is and what is not a legitimate government. Which did not address Nelson Mandela at all. Hmmmm.

[Jimmy Higgins]

My very first post in this thread where I discuss what is and what is not a legitimate government.I can't find it anywhere Hooboy!! You wrote the OP, could you quote where exactly you showed where this is. The only hint I see from you in the OP comes from:

"For me, this is the single most important priority. Without a stable and just society, nothing else is possible. I am not however, interested in supporting just any form of governance"

For the life of me, I don't see where you continue into the thought that you seem to begin at the end of that quote.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
It seems inconceivable for Hooboy !!, although he denies this, that the state can be truly immoral. He has said in the #2 thread that, fundamentally, he trusts the Establishment and, by extension, the state.From Hooboy !!:
If you had been paying attentionOh, I pay very close attention to what you write, Hooboy !!.

From Hooboy !!:
youl would also have read my point on the subjectivity of morality. Where does the moral authority come from? The answer is: The majority.Oh, really. And where did you get that quaint notion? So, the majority is always moral? Humm. I guess, then, when the majority of this society approved of slavery, that was moral. So, what you've done is completely wiped away morality in terms of values. Why doesn't this surprise me?

From Hooboy !!:
In a democratic society, the establishment is always moralFlawed premise above. Flawed deduction below.

From Hooboy !!:
The problem as I see it are people who seem to think that there is some kind of objective morality. The notion is absurd.The last people around here I recall believing in objective morality were the Objectivists, who were not, last time I noticed, into civil disobedience.*

RED DAVE

*Nathaniel Brandon: Oh, Ayn. Get away from that lunch counter. You're blocking the capitalist Woolworth's from making a profit.

Ayn Rand: If you won't tie me up and screw me, maybe the cops will.

[laughing dog]

If you had been paying attention, youl would also have read my point on the subjectivity of morality. Where does the moral authority come from? The answer is: The majority. In a democratic society, the establishment is always moral, because it represents the majority view.
So, the Jim Crow laws were moral, because a majority of the citizens in those areas wanted them. The oppression and destruction of the German Jews were moral, because the Germans voted for Hitler and his party. Hmmmm.

Of course, the irony of this view from this particular poster is that it makes abortion moral as well.

[Hooboy !!]

Note: I am trying to segregate the relationshiop between what is moral and governance from the other thread, which dealt with the issue of rule of law and constitutionalism. So, I placing my response to this thread as opposed to the other thread.

Oh really. And how do we determine justice unless it conforms to one standard of morality or another?
I think it is pretty easy to objectively determine what is and what is not just. It is something that can be measured. The concept of "justness" must be separated from the concept of "moral". The presumption is that justness is moral, but this then would imply an objective moralty, which I do not subsscribe to. If justness cannot be quantified or qualitated, then the concept is perfectly useless.

Where did "lashing out" suddenly enter the picture. In general, civil disobedience campaigns are well thought out. They being with outrage, yes, but they constitute disciplined protest, not lashing out.
I did not mean to imply that it was not deliberate or well thought out with a specific purpose.

Not so. Civil disobedience takes responsibility for harm done, if harm is done.
Then this violates the principles of "peaceful" demonstration, or are you asserting that harm and peaceful are not mutually exclusive?

However, it is to stop a "harm," like racism or war, that civil disobedience is undertaken. It is a question of a clash of moralities. Your seems to be that any disruption of the so-called stability of society is immoral and impermissible.
Now, finally we are on the same page. Here you are rationalizing the committing of "harm" as justification for ending another, presumably, greater "harm". Your assertion however that I think it is "impermissible" would be wrong. I have zero problem with inflicting harm, when it is justified.

It depends on your morality. To me, racism was immoral and commiting civil disobedience against it was moral.
Even if it causes "harm"? lol

No doubt, you do not see the contradiction here. No matter. The important thing is again, we are on the same page. You are absolutely right... it depends on your morality. It is a pretty personal thing.

You may very well feel morally superior while you are committing acts of civil disobedience, but I could feel equally morally superior for beating you with a rubber hose and carting you off to prison. And here is the kicker... there is no objective moral authority that would settle the question of which one of us was right. Objectively speaking? You were the one disrupting the stability of society. That is a given. There is also the argument that the unjust law was also a threat to social stability, but that is not a given.

[RED DAVE]

I'm only going to deal with this one. It's so ridiculous that it deserves post all by itself.

From RED DAVE:
And how do we determine justice unless it conforms to one standard of morality or another?From Hooboy !!:
I think it is pretty easy to objectively determine what is and what is not just.Okay, let's see you do it. This is going to be amusing. Plato wrote the entire Republic to try to do just that. (P.S. He couldn't pull it off either.)

From Hooboy !!:
It is something that can be measured.Measurement implies a standard. A standard implies a morality.

Notice – Hooboy !! has just ducked the question. He has stated that justice can be measured, but he hasn't shown how to do it – because he can't.

From Hooboy !!:
The concept of "justness" must be separated from the concept of "moral".You said that already, but you haven't demonstrated that it can be done. How do you determine justice without reference to a system of morality?

From Hooboy !!:
The presumption is that justness is moralAccording to some standard, yes. The question is: what's the standard. I'd like to see you measure justice without a moral standard.

From Hooboy !!:
but this then would imply an objective moralty, which I do not subsscribe to.That's ridiculous to even bring it up. They teach this in Philo 101: there is no objective justice; there is no objective morality. Each person has there own standard, or each group, and we compete. The winner gets to set the standard, or try to.

If you've read the Republic, you might remember a character named Thrasymachus. His notion is "justice is the interest of the stronger party." He was a little rigid, but he was on the right track.

From Hooboy !!:
If justness cannot be quantified or qualitated, then the concept is perfectly useless.A) You haven't demonstrated that it can be so "quantified or qualitated" (There's so such word as "qualitated." The word is "qualified.) without a moral standard.

B) Even without such a standard, the notion of justice is useful: we just fight about whose justice it's going to be.

You, for instance, are in love with the justice of the Establishment. They are trustworthy, just, fair and good (and I didn't have sex with that woman and Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction).

Needless to say, my concept of justice is differerent.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Where did "lashing out" suddenly enter the picture. In general, civil disobedience campaigns are well thought out. They being with outrage, yes, but they constitute disciplined protest, not lashing out.From Hooboy !!:
I did not mean to imply that it was not deliberate or well thought out with a specific purpose.Cool.

From RED DAVE:
Not so. Civil disobedience takes responsibility for harm done, if harm is done.From Hooboy !!:
Then this violates the principles of "peaceful" demonstrationNo it doesn't. Peaceful demos can cause harm. For instance, a sit-in causes harm to the business where the sit-in is taking place. Likewise a boycott.

From Hooboy !!:
or are you asserting that harm and peaceful are not mutually exclusive?They are not. Harm can be caused peacefully. The point is to accept responsibility. Blocking a person's business is harm to them (even if they are practicing racism). In a classic civil disobedience campaign, the protesters are willing to go to jail as a consequence of their action.

From RED DAVE:
However, it is to stop a "harm," like racism or war, that civil disobedience is undertaken. It is a question of a clash of moralities. Your seems to be that any disruption of the so-called stability of society is immoral and impermissible.From Hooboy !!:
Now, finally we are on the same page.We'll see.

From RED DAVE:
Here you are rationalizing the committing of "harm" as justification for ending another, presumably, greater "harm".Yes, I am.

From RED DAVE:
Your assertion however that I think it is "impermissible" would be wrong. I have zero problem with inflicting harm, when it is justified.Okay. Then the issue them becomes justification. What you think is justified, based on your morality, and what I think is justified, based on mine, are very different. There is sufficient overlap to debate, we speak the same language, but the issue is a clash of moralities.

From RED DAVE:
It depends on your morality. To me, racism was immoral and commiting civil disobedience against it was moral.From Hooboy !!:
Even if it causes "harm"? lolGlad you think it's funny. Schwerner, Cheney and Goodman didn't.

All that means is that you think racism was cool and protests were immoral. Why doesn't this surprise me?

From Hooboy !!:
No doubt, you do not see the contradiction here. No matter. The important thing is again, we are on the same page. You are absolutely right... it depends on your morality. It is a pretty personal thing.That's right.

From Hooboy !!:
You may very well feel morally superior while you are committing acts of civil disobedience, but I could feel equally morally superior for beating you with a rubber hose and carting you off to prison.Quite so. I'm sure that David Duke considers himself a moral person as did Bull Connor.

From Hooboy !!:
And here is the kicker... there is no objective moral authority that would settle the question of which one of us was right.True.

From Hooboy !!:
Objectively speaking? You were the one disrupting the stability of society. That is a given.Oh, sly one! You're trying to slip objective morality in the back door. It's not a given at all. To me, racism was racists are the disruptors of stabilty. So we're right back with social conflict, where we belong.

From Hooboy !!:
There is also the argument that the unjust law was also a threat to social stability, but that is not a given.Not to you! But to me it is. I see nothing more threatening to social stability than unjust laws. People will be breaking 'em, protesting 'em and where's your stability there?

For a "neutral" example that we might both agree on, consider the drug laws. Without these bullshit laws, half the crime in the US probably wouldn't be happening. So, where's the destablizing factor: in the bad law.

See you on the picket line.

RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

Required reading. Gandhi's Autobiography through 1920, including his early nonviolent campaigns and the development of his philosophy and method.

An Autobiography

or The Story of my Experiments with Truth

by Mohandas K. Gandhi

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/An_Autobiography_or_The_Story_of_my_Experiments_with_Truth

Translator's Preface

The first edition of Gandhiji's Autobiography was published in two volumes, Vol. I in 1927 and Vol. II in 1929. The original in Gujarati which was priced at Re. 1/- has run through five editions, nearly 50,000 copies having been sold. The price of the English translation (only issued in library edition) was prohibitive for the Indian reader, and a cheap edition has long been needed.

It is now being issued in one volume. The translation, as it appeared serially in Young India, had, it may be noted, the benefit of Gandhiji's revision. It has now undergone careful revision, and from the point of view of language, it has had the benefit of careful revision by a revered friend, who, among many other things, has the reputation of being an eminent English scholar. Before undertaking the task, he made it a condition that his name should on no account be given out. I accept the condition. It is needless to say it heightens my sense of gratitude to him.

Chapters XXIX-XLIII of Part V were translated by my friend and colleague Pyarelal during my absence in Bardoli at the time of the Bardoli Agrarian Inquiry by the Broomfield Committee in 1928-29.RED DAVE

[Jimmy Higgins]

I can't find it anywhere Hooboy!! You wrote the OP, could you quote where exactly you showed where this is. The only hint I see from you in the OP comes from:

"For me, this is the single most important priority. Without a stable and just society, nothing else is possible. I am not however, interested in supporting just any form of governance"

For the life of me, I don't see where you continue into the thought that you seem to begin at the end of that quote.Hooboy!!, am I chopped liver or something? Could you please toss me a bone or please explain to me where you've specifically addressed what governments you wouldn't be supporting in the case of civil disobedience?

[RED DAVE]

Hooboy!!, am I chopped liver or something? Could you please toss me a bone or please explain to me where you've specifically addressed what governments you wouldn't be supporting in the case of civil disobedience?On matzah. :D

As far as I recall, he hasn't specified. He did make a distinction concerning the British and Gandhi's campaign of civil disobedience because British rule of India wasn't democratic.

RED DAVE

[Samhain]

Why you continue to deconstruct Hooboy!!'s arguments point by point is completely beyond me.

First, he doesn't offer any evidence to validate his ridiculous claims, but instead just makes wild assertions and for some reason thinks it's beneath him to defend the basic foundations of everything his arguments stand upon.

Second, anyone with half a brain should already be able to tell that most of his arguments are rubbish, any valid concerns brought forward are systematically ignored and he only responds to points that he can create circular arguments around.

Third, he has yet to present any evidence that backs up any of his claims at all, but throws out poor pseudo-logic in an attempt to back up his outrageous assertions and continues to ignore the most fundamental basics behind the terms that he is using (i.e. civil disobedience, democracy, anything having to do with how law works at all, etc.).

{MOD SNIP} These threads need better moderation IMO, because there's really no point in discussing any of this if he just continues to systematically ignore valid points against his arguments and bases his so-called "conclusions" on nothing more than what his own thoughts dream up.

[RED DAVE]

Why you continue to deconstruct Hooboy!!'s arguments point by point is completely beyond me.1 1/2 months till Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. :D

This film naturally involves civil disobedience and, gasp, rebellion against the established government: the Ministry of Magic.

{MOD SNIP}

RED DAVE

[Samhain]

1 1/2 months till Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. :D

RED DAVE

I concede, sir! :D

[enoch007]

No, it is not a moral issue. It is a pragmatic issue. And, no... a stable society is not necessarily a just society.

Stability in the absence of justice is tyranny.

[laughing dog]

You may very well feel morally superior while you are committing acts of civil disobedience, but I could feel equally morally superior for beating you with a rubber hose and carting you off to prison.
You might, but it would still be wrong. It is not a given that beating someone with a rubber hose for nonviolent civil disobedience is a just or moral act.


And here is the kicker... there is no objective moral authority that would settle the question of which one of us was right. Objectively speaking? You were the one disrupting the stability of society. That is not objective. Nonviolent civil disobedience may or may not be disrupting the stability of society.

[Jimmy Higgins]

You might, but it would still be wrong. It is not a given that beating someone with a rubber hose for nonviolent civil disobedience is a just or moral act. I believe Hooboy!!'s stated view is that enforcing the law is moral while breaking the law is immoral.

That is not objective. Nonviolent civil disobedience may or may not be disrupting the stability of society.I find it hard to imagine any disobedience that would achieve anything if it weren't disruptive in some fashion. It doesn't need to be destabilizing, but it probably will be disruptive.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Let's keep this on topic folks.

[laughing dog]

I believe Hooboy!!'s stated view is that enforcing the law is moral while breaking the law is immoral. Enforcement does not necessarily include the beating of nonviolent criminals.

I find it hard to imagine any disobedience that would achieve anything if it weren't disruptive in some fashion. It doesn't need to be destabilizing, but it probably will be disruptive. Disruptive to the rhythm of life is not, as you point out, necessarily destabilizing.

[Hooboy !!]

As far as I recall, he hasn't specified. He did make a distinction concerning the British and Gandhi's campaign of civil disobedience because British rule of India wasn't democratic.
I thought I laid it out pretty well in the OP of part 2. I do not feel compelled to discuss specific governments. They would result in a derail. But, I see that you got it, so I feel that at least one person is managing to get it, which is good enough for me.

[Jimmy Higgins]

Enforcement does not necessarily include the beating of nonviolent criminals. I wasn't exactly defending the point, more or less under the understanding that in Hooboy!!'s argument, if breaking the law is destabilizing then it is necessary to use force to save the stability. I hardly agree with that, and that may not be what he's saying, but that is my understanding of his argument.

Disruptive to the rhythm of life is not, as you point out, necessarily destabilizing.Yeah. Destabilizing gives the essence of significant turmoil being created. The LA Riots were destabilizing! The Immigrant protests of last year were not.

[Jimmy Higgins]

I thought I laid it out pretty well in the OP of part 2. I do not feel compelled to discuss specific governments. They would result in a derail. But, I see that you got it, so I feel that at least one person is managing to get it, which is good enough for me.
Hooboy!!, please don't be getting some sort of smug attitude here. I asked a question, you said you dealt with the issue I raised in the OP of this thread. I could not find it anywhere and asked for further help. You decided to ignore it and pretend I didn't raise the issue at all. That isn't respectful.

You noted in the OP that you aren't saying you support just any governance and I asked on what basis you wouldn't support the government over an act of civil disobedience. This is your thread. You started it, so don't act all smug when you start changing the rules in thread to avoid issues your ideas are raising.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

American governance serves at the whim of the people, not the other way around. This is why the founding fathers established a series of checks and balances against government tyranny and charged its citizenry with the duty to overthrow any governing agency that abused its power.

It isn't limited to the periodic vote; the FF have charged us to never let our guards down against governing tyranny. Hence our right to bear arms. Ring any bells?

To put it into the offensive urban vernacular of late, Society is our bitch, Hooboy !! and any elected official or governing agency is to do what citizens tell them to do. Always and with their asses lubed up and ready.

Funny how they never seem to do that unless big wads of cash are deposited into their PACs, however and that's where CD comes into it. Not a single FF would agree with your implied docility, Hoo; they would, in fact, be appalled by it.

:huh:

[Hooboy !!]

Okay, let's see you do it. This is going to be amusing. Plato wrote the entire Republic to try to do just that. (P.S. He couldn't pull it off either.)
There are many forms of justice. Plato was looking for The form of justice.

Measurement implies a standard.
Not in the sense of an objective justice. The standard for justice is defined in the constitution. It is measured by how well the law is applied. Simple. For example... why is it that there are a disproportionate number of blacks in in prison? Why are their sentences longer on average? This is justice being measured. I suppose there is "justice under the law" and there is "social justice".

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy!!, please don't be getting some sort of smug attitude here. I asked a question, you said you dealt with the issue I raised in the OP of this thread. I could not find it anywhere and asked for further help. You decided to ignore it and pretend I didn't raise the issue at all. That isn't respectful.

You noted in the OP that you aren't saying you support just any governance and I asked on what basis you wouldn't support the government over an act of civil disobedience. This is your thread. You started it, so don't act all smug when you start changing the rules in thread to avoid issues your ideas are raising.
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showpost.php?p=4466753&postcount=1

What is a legitimate government? Should be answered in there.

[Samhain]

Not a single FF would agree with your implied docility, Hoo; they would, in fact, be appalled by it.


I don't know. To be fair, I think that Madison would have been alright with it.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Measurement implies a standard.From Hooboy !!:
Not in the sense of an objective justice.No, and I've very clearly pointed out that I'm not making a claim for objective just. I'm making the claim that any notion of justice implies and requires a morality. I said this two or three times and you keep up wth that bullshit about objective justice.

From RED DAVE:
The standard for justice is defined in the constitution.Okay. Now we see where you're coming from: the system of morality for you is the system of morality as defined in the Constitution. Make no mistake: it's a system of morality and an evolving one at that. It isn't objective. It represents the morality of some but not all.

From Hooboy !!:
It is measured by how well the law is applied. Simple.Simply bullshit or rather duckshit. C'mon, Hooboy !!. You have evaded the issue. The Constitution has a system of morality built into it. And now you're saying that how well the laws, which are governed by the Constitution, are applied, is some kind of a measure of justice outside of morality.

From Hooboy !!:
For example... why is it that there are a disproportionate number of blacks in in prison? Why are their sentences longer on average? This is justice being measured. I suppose there is "justice under the law" and there is "social justice".I cannot figure out what your point is here, and I'm not going to try. You are raving. You've had our ass kicked, and you're raving.

To reiterate:

a) Any notion of justice implies a morality.

b) The Constitution of the United States has such a morality.

c) Therefore you are defining justice in terms of the morality of the Constitution.

d) The issue as to whether or not the laws under the Constitution are equitably applied or not is a secondary issue at best. The issue becomes the morality of the Constitution, which I guess is yours.

RED DAVE

[laughing dog]

I thought I laid it out pretty well in the OP of part 2. I do not feel compelled to discuss specific governments. They would result in a derail. But, I see that you got it, so I feel that at least one person is managing to get it, which is good enough for me.
This quasi-response implies the civil disobedience to laws in an undemocratic society can reasonable, even if it affects the stability of the society.
However, it avoids dealing with the US civil rights era which including civil disobedience in a democratic society.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I don't know. To be fair, I think that Madison would have been alright with it.

I doubt it. He was no fan of the tyranny of the majority. Here's an excerpt (http://candst.tripod.com/dangers.htm) from James Madison to James Monroe back in 1786:

There is no maxim in my opinion which is more liable to be misapplied, and which therefore more needs elucidation than the current one that the interest of the majority is the political standard of right and wrong. Taking the word "interest" as synonymous with "Ultimate happiness," in which sense it is qualified with every necessary moral ingredient, the proposition is no doubt true. But taking it in the popular sense, as referring to immediate augmentation of property and wealth, nothing can be more false. In the latter sense it would be the interest of the majority in every community to despoil and enslave the minority of individuals; and in a federal community to make a similar sacrifice of the minority of the component States. In fact it is only reestablishing under another name and a more specious form, force as the measure of right.

[Hooboy !!]

Okay. Now we see where you're coming from: the system of morality for you is the system of morality as defined in the Constitution. Make no mistake: it's a system of morality and an evolving one at that.
No, it is not. If you believe this, then you are no different than a theologist.

[Samhain]

I doubt it. He was no fan of the tyranny of the majority. Here's an excerpt (http://candst.tripod.com/dangers.htm) from James Madison to James Monroe back in 1786:

No, he wasn't, but he was typically mistrustful of the people in general, which is why he outlined the Constitution to reflect his mistrust. Of course, he didn't care for oppression of the State over the individual or the majority over the minority, but he felt that the general public was driven by their passions rather than by reason, and he wanted a State that would remove itself as much from the general public as was possible while maintaining a democracy. This was mostly in the wake of Shay's Rebellion and the easiest source to point to in support of this is, of course, Federalist Paper #10.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Okay. Now we see where you're coming from: the system of morality for you is the system of morality as defined in the Constitution. Make no mistake: it's a system of morality and an evolving one at that.From Hooboy:
No, it is not. If you believe this, then you are no different than a theologist.Well, now you've retreated to name calling. You have not basis for you're argument, so you'll curse me out.

From The Preamble to the US Constitution:
We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.Note these terms:

• perfect union
• justice
• domestic tranquility
• common defense
• general welfare
• blessings of liberty

Now, these are political terms, but they are also profoundly moral. They establish a system as to what is important and what isn't. That is a morality, a politcal morality if you will, but still a morality.

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

Well, now you've retreated to name calling. You have not basis for you're argument, so you'll curse me out.
Ahhh. Don't be so sensitive. It is an apt and accurate comparison. Theology seeks to define a common morality and then define a system of governance where everyone conforms to that standard.

From The Preamble to the US Constitution:
Note these terms:

• perfect union
• justice
• domestic tranquility
• common defense
• general welfare
• blessings of liberty

Now, these are political terms, but they are also profoundly moral. They establish a system as to what is important and what isn't. That is a morality, a politcal morality if you will, but still a morality.
You may see them as moral, but that does not mean that it is a system of morality. Consider the concept of "domestic tranquility". What this means is that Wicaans and Catholics can sit in the same room with eachother and have a pleasant conversation, respectful of eachother's differences and recognizing the good that comes from allowing eachother the freedom to practice whatever form of religion, with their opposing systems of morality, as they see fit, without fear.

Is it "good" in a moral sense? Ask 10 people and you are bound to get 10 different answers. It is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that they behave themselves. That is not a moral issue. That is a humanist issue. That is a pragmatic issue.

[AthenaAwakened]

Is it "good" in a moral sense? Ask 10 people and you are bound to get 10 different answers. It is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that they behave themselves. That is not a moral issue. That is a humanist issue. That is a pragmatic issue.

:huh:

[unrealist42]

Some here think that any illegal protest against the government constitutes civil disobedience but how can a political protest be illegal when the constitution guarantees the right of the people to gather together to address their grievances to the government?

So what if they inconvenience a few people?
It is the price of democracy.

Is it too much to ask the government to behave itself and let the people have their protest?

A number of years ago I talked with one of the organizers of the hemp rallies in Seattle. At the time the city was basically trying to shut it down by putting more and more onerous conditions on the organizers. At one point they told them they had to put up a fence and hire cops which would cost some $100,000 which they did not have. That's when Vivian said "Look, this is a political rally, we don't need your permission. The only reason we are even talking to you is out of courtesy but if you are going to continue to be assholes about it we will have it whenever and wherever we chose and we won't even let you know. The city backed down completely because they wanted some control over where and when 50,000 pot smokers were going to descend on their city in a show of mass civil disobedience.

[Hooboy !!]

Some here think that any illegal protest against the government constitutes civil disobedience but how can a political protest be illegal when the constitution guarantees the right of the people to gather together to address their grievances to the government?

So what if they inconvenience a few people?
It is the price of democracy.

Is it too much to ask the government to behave itself and let the people have their protest?

A number of years ago I talked with one of the organizers of the hemp rallies in Seattle. At the time the city was basically trying to shut it down by putting more and more onerous conditions on the organizers. At one point they told them they had to put up a fence and hire cops which would cost some $100,000 which they did not have. That's when Vivian said "Look, this is a political rally, we don't need your permission. The only reason we are even talking to you is out of courtesy but if you are going to continue to be assholes about it we will have it whenever and wherever we chose and we won't even let you know. The city backed down completely because they wanted some control over where and when 50,000 pot smokers were going to descend on their city in a show of mass civil disobedience.
Freedom of assembly and speech is not civil disobedience.

[laughing dog]

A It is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that they behave themselves. That is not a moral issue. That is a humanist issue. That is a pragmatic issue. If behaving oneself is not a moral issue, then how can it be immoral to misbehave oneself? You've got quite the internal contradiction.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Well, now you've retreated to name calling. You have not basis for you're argument, so you'll curse me out.From Hooboy !!:
Ahhh. Don't be so sensitive. It is an apt and accurate comparison. Theology seeks to define a common morality and then define a system of governance where everyone conforms to that standard.You are distorting what I'm doing, which you've been doing for quite a few posts. I have not attempted to "define a common morality and then define a system of governance where everyone conforms to that standard." All I have done is point out that a morality, a moral system, lies behind any concept of justice. You have been dancing around this and trying to deny it, but you can't.

From The Preamble to the US Constitution:
Note these terms:

• perfect union
• justice
• domestic tranquility
• common defense
• general welfare
• blessings of liberty

Now, these are political terms, but they are also profoundly moral. They establish a system as to what is important and what isn't. That is a morality, a politcal morality if you will, but still a morality.From Hooboy !!:
You may see them as moral, but that does not mean that it is a system of morality.The sum total of these and many other parts of the Constitution constitutes, basically, a system of political morality.

Hooboy !!:
Consider the concept of "domestic tranquility". What this means is that Wicaans and Catholics can sit in the same room with eachother and have a pleasant conversation, respectful of eachother's differences and recognizing the good that comes from allowing eachother the freedom to practice whatever form of religion, with their opposing systems of morality, as they see fit, without fear.And that is the stance of a particular morality: that such interchange is a good thing. If you ask, say, Osama Bin Laden, I'm quite sure that he would say that such pleasant conversations are immoral and disgusting. You cannot get away from that fact that this is a moral tenet.

Hooboy !!:
Is it "good" in a moral sense? Ask 10 people and you are bound to get 10 different answers.That's because you are encountering ten different moral systems.

Hooboy !!:
It is irrelevant. All that is relevant is that they behave themselves. That is not a moral issue. That is a humanist issue. That is a pragmatic issueIt is a pragmatic issue. It is a humanist issue. And it is a moral issue. It is quite simple to point out that there are systems of morality where behaving oneself is irrelevent at best. Consider the morality of the average gang member.

Any definition of justice rests on a system of morality. You can't get away from that. And, when civil disobedience is practiced, it is frequently one system of morality and justice against another.

For example, civil disobedience against the War in Iraq clearly pits two moral systems against each other. Bush's system is that lying the country into war is moral and civil disobedience is practically treason. Protesters' system is that Bush is a lying mass murderer and civil disobedience is perfectly justified.

Which side are you on?

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

The sum total of these and many other parts of the Constitution constitutes, basically, a system of political morality.
There is no such thing as "political morality". Politics is the process of two people, with different points of view (morality) negotiating a condition where each can coexist. It does not define a new, negotiated morality. The result is not necessarily "moral", from any perspective, just as long as it is agreed to and lived up to.

[Hooboy !!]

If behaving oneself is not a moral issue, then how can it be immoral to misbehave oneself? You've got quite the internal contradiction.
From whose perspective? I suppose this would make sense if we were talking about a situation where an objective morality was present. But, since I'm not... this is so much nonsense.

[laughing dog]

From whose perspective? I suppose this would make sense if we were talking about a situation where an objective morality was present. But, since I'm not... this is so much nonsense.
If behaving oneself is not a moral issue - according to your post, then how can misbehaving oneself be a moral issue? It cannot. Hence the contradiction in your post. The implication is quite clear - civil obedience is "behaving oneself" is not a moral issue, hence civil disobedience is not a moral issue.

However, I do agree with you - this is so much nonsense.

[zorq]

Hooboy!!, The quick and simple definition of a system of morality is a system which defines certain traits or things or traits of things as "good" or "bad." That is exactly what the Constitution does. It is what the Bible does, It is what the Magna carta does. It is what the Laws of Hamurabi did.

Do you disagree with my definition? Give me a better one. You just equated morality to a "point of view" a couple posts above. Well, that applies to all of my aforementioned documents too.

[RED DAVE]

There is no such thing as "political morality". Politics is the process of two people, with different points of view (morality) negotiating a condition where each can coexist. It does not define a new, negotiated morality. The result is not necessarily "moral", from any perspective, just as long as it is agreed to and lived up to.You're a couple of hundred years behind the times Hooboy !!. All you are doing is making it up along the way. You've shown, over and over again, that you don't understand such basic concepts as the role of civil disobedience in a democracy, the relationship of justice and morality and the nature of the Establishment. That's all.

Maximilien Robespierre:
On the Principles of Political Morality, February 1794

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1794robespierre.html

Citizens, Representatives of the People:

Some time since we laid before you the principles of our exterior political system, we now come to develop the principles of political morality which are to govern the interior. After having long pursued the path which chance pointed out, carried away in a manner by the efforts of contending factions, the Representatives of the People at length acquired a character and produced a form of government. A sudden change in the success of the nation announced to Europe the regeneration which was operated in the national representation. But to this point of time, even now that I address you, it must be allowed that we have been impelled thro' the tempest of a revolution, rather by a love of right and a feeling of the wants of our country, than by an exact theory, and precise rules of conduct, which we had not even leisure to sketch.RED DAVE

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

If you had been paying attention, youl would also have read my point on the subjectivity of morality. Where does the moral authority come from? The answer is: The majority. In a democratic society, the establishment is always moral, because it represents the majority view.



Hooboy !! comes out in favor of abortion in this thread! Hooboy !! now opposses the Iraq war!

Another interesing thought:

Isn't civil disobedience protesting an unpopular (i.e. not good in the opinion of the majority) law? Doesn't that make it moral?

Once again, in this thread, Hooboy !! debates himself to a standstill.

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

We are not all going to agree on what is moral, immoral and how even to define morality. One interesting thing to think about: suppose for a moment that Hooboy!! is right that democracy somehow dictates morality. Well, there are different levels of democratic structures nested in each other...like you live in a town which is in a state which is in a country which is in the UN. Each of these entities has a democratic like structure. Now, the UN does define some things which are sort of like ethics...like human rights...and other stuff like that.

So this brings me to a specific case of civil disobedience, the "St Patrick's Day Four:"
The four argued that their actions were legal because the invasion of Iraq was illegal under international law. Because the United Nations had not approved the invasion of Iraq, the invasion was a series of serious illegal acts that constitute war crimes. And, under the Nuremberg Principles of international law, individuals have international rights and duties to prevent crimes against humanity which transcend the national obligations of obedience imposed by the individual state.
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0317-32.htm

It seems like groupings of people into entities like the states and towns, etc is rather arbitrary with respect to 'morality'. However, crimes against humanity seem to be absolute. We may, though, disagree on any event which might be called a crime against humanity.

Yes/No?

[Hooboy !!]

Hooboy!!, The quick and simple definition of a system of morality is a system which defines certain traits or things or traits of things as "good" or "bad." That is exactly what the Constitution does. It is what the Bible does, It is what the Magna carta does. It is what the Laws of Hamurabi did.

Do you disagree with my definition? Give me a better one. You just equated morality to a "point of view" a couple posts above. Well, that applies to all of my aforementioned documents too.
The concepts of "good" and "bad" are not necessarily moral judgements of what "ought" to be or what is or is not "virtuous".

[Hooboy !!]

It seems like groupings of people into entities like the states and towns, etc is rather arbitrary with respect to 'morality'. However, crimes against humanity seem to be absolute. We may, though, disagree on any event which might be called a crime against humanity.

Yes/No?
People continue to look for absolute truths, such as "crimes against humanity". They do not exist. We can however agree upon a rule that defines something heinous enough to characerized as a "crime against humanity". But, it is only a rule and for every rule, there are exceptions.

The purpose of rules and laws is to govern people's behavior. They are not intended to govern how people think and feel. This is the distinction between what is a system of morality and what is a political system.

[Hooboy !!]

If behaving oneself is not a moral issue - according to your post, then how can misbehaving oneself be a moral issue? It cannot. Hence the contradiction in your post. The implication is quite clear - civil obedience is "behaving oneself" is not a moral issue, hence civil disobedience is not a moral issue.
Repeating yourself does not make your comment make any more sense. You might want to try answering the question I posed. It might make more sense then.

[laughing dog]

Repeating yourself does not make your comment make any more sense. You might want to try answering the question I posed. It might make more sense then. It doesn't.
However, you might try actually thinking about your position. According to the you, civil disobedience is immoral. However, behaving properly is neither moral nor immoral according to you. From that, behaving improperly can neither be moral nor immoral. Since civil disobedience is improper behavior, it can be neither moral nor immoral. So, there is an internal contradiction according to your own "standards".

[zorq]

The concepts of "good" and "bad" are not necessarily moral judgements of what "ought" to be or what is or is not "virtuous".

The American Heritage®
Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition

vir·tue (vûr'chōō)
n.

1.
1. Moral excellence and righteousness; goodness.
2. An example or kind of moral excellence: the virtue of patience.


mor·al (môr'əl, mŏr'-)
adj.

1. Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
2. Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
3. Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.





Virtue MEANS goodness. Virtue IS a moral quality.

The constitution of the USA values "justice." It defines "justice" in a certain way. "Justice" is the way things ought to be according to the constitution. The constitution considers "justice" as it defines it to be good, in other words, "justice" is a virtue.

Justice in the constitution IS moral.

[RED DAVE]

The concepts of "good" and "bad" are not necessarily moral judgements of what "ought" to be or what is or is not "virtuous".That's true. I can certainly refer to a "good" or a "bad" hamburger without a moral judgment.

However, as soon as I slip over into human behavior, human endeavors, the human condition, and I use the words "good" and "bad," I've slipped into the moral sphere or the issue of whether or not something is "virtuous."

You're licked, Hooboy !!.

• Our attitudes towards civil disobedience depends on our concepts of justice.

• Our concepts of justice depend on our morality.

• Our morality is, essentially, a set of judgements as to what is "good" and "bad," especially, but not exclusively, in the realm of human behavior

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

However, as soon as I slip over into human behavior, human endeavors, the human condition, and I use the words "good" and "bad," I've slipped into the moral sphere or the issue of whether or not something is "virtuous."
A constitution is not discussing human "behavior, human endeavors, the human condition", it is discussing the relationship between humans. Human behavior is an individual issue. Not an issue of the state or of governance. The state sets the parameters and the punishments. That is all. People can either choose to obey or not. That is a personal choice. The only thing the state is obligated to do is fairly administer the law.

[Hooboy !!]

However, you might try actually thinking about your position.
I am not interested in your advice on how to think. Thanks anyway.

According to the you, civil disobedience is immoral.
Is murder or stealing immoral? How about cheating on your taxes? How about exceeding the speed limit? I prefer living under rule of law as opposed to anarchy and chaos. Therefore, I am committed to obeying all laws, regardless of whether or not I think they are fair or "moral".

However, behaving properly is neither moral nor immoral according to you. From that, behaving improperly can neither be moral nor immoral. Since civil disobedience is improper behavior, it can be neither moral nor immoral. So, there is an internal contradiction according to your own "standards".
Yea, still struggling with that perspective problem I see. Cool.

[laughing dog]

I am not interested in your advice on how to think. Thanks anyway. Too bad.


Yea, still struggling with that perspective problem I see. Cool. When everyone but you sees the internal contradiction of your position, the evidence suggests you have a "perspective problem".

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
However, as soon as I slip over into human behavior, human endeavors, the human condition, and I use the words "good" and "bad," I've slipped into the moral sphere or the issue of whether or not something is "virtuous."From Hooboy !!:
A constitution is not discussing human "behavior, human endeavors, the human condition", it is discussing the relationship between humans.This is really pathetic. Do you make this shit up, or do you find in the bottom of cracker jack boxes? What is “the relatinship between humans” if not part of the human condition? Silly, Hooboy !!, just silly.

From Hooboy !!:
Human behavior is an individual issue. Not an issue of the state or of governance. The state sets the parameters and the punishments. Pathetic.

1) “Human behavior is an individual issue. Not an issue of the state or of governance.”

Which is followed by:

2) “The state sets the parameters and the punishments.”

What are “the parameters and the punishments” but the delineaments of human behavior? Are we dealing with the “the parameters and the punishments” for dogs and cats?

From Hooboy !!:
That is all.If you're auditioning for the role of Amanda Priestly in the sequel to The Devil Wears Prada, the line is "That's all." :D

From Hooboy !!:
People can either choose to obey or not. That is a personal choice. The only thing the state is obligated to do is fairly administer the law.The mind boggles!

1) “The state sets the parameters and the punishments.”

Followed by:

2) “The only thing the state is obligated to do is fairly administer the law.”

Dude, the state has created the law. That’s what the “parameters and the punishments” are. And, the “parameters and the punishments” constitute, guess what: a system of morality! So, one more time,we see that a concept of morality or virtue is in fact built into the law.

From laughing dog:
However, you might try actually thinking about your position.From Hooboy !!:
I am not interested in your advice on how to think. Thanks anyway.Or anyone else’s, hence the logical creek you’re up without a paddle, canoe, life jacket, sandwich or a can of coke.

From laughing dog:
According to the you, civil disobedience is immoral.From Hooboy !!:
Is murder or stealing immoral? How about cheating on your taxes? How about exceeding the speed limit?Is this how you’re characterizing civil disobedience now? You’re position has certainly rigidified since this debate began.

From Hooboy !!:
I prefer living under rule of law as opposed to anarchy and chaos. Therefore, I am committed to obeying all laws, regardless of whether or not I think they are fair or "moral".The word, I believe, is “priggish.”

No wonder you love Bush and are a die hard supporter of his lies and war.

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

When everyone but you sees the internal contradiction of your position, the evidence suggests you have a "perspective problem".
Not when what everyone sees is based on strawmen. The simple fact of the matter is, you are deliberate fabricating a contradiction that does not exist, by collecting things I have said out context. Knock yourself out. I tried to explain it and you ignored the opportunity, choosing instead to resort to baiting and antagonizing. I expect nothing less.

[Hooboy !!]

Dude, the state has created the law. That’s what the “parameters and the punishments” are. And, the “parameters and the punishments” constitute, guess what: a system of morality! So, one more time,we see that a concept of morality or virtue is in fact built into the law.
Nope. No more so that the rules of game are a system of morality.

[laughing dog]

Not when what everyone sees is based on strawmen. The simple fact of the matter is, you are deliberate fabricating a contradiction that does not exist, by collecting things I have said out context.Um, this is factually untrue. The contradiction has been inherent from your position since day one. I was not the 1st to see it, nor the last. You provide no evidence nor explanation of your allegation. Until that time, it is simply an unproven slander.



Knock yourself out. I tried to explain it and you ignored the opportunity, choosing instead to resort to baiting and antagonizing. I expect nothing less. Again, factually untrue. Show your "explanation". As to baiting and antagonizing, I see none from my end.

[laughing dog]

I prefer living under rule of law as opposed to anarchy and chaos. So do those who practice civil disobedience. Otherwise they would become revolutionaries.

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

Not when what everyone sees is based on strawmen. The simple fact of the matter is, you are deliberate fabricating a contradiction that does not exist, by collecting things I have said out context.

Dude, I demonstrated contradictions in your reasoning by posting direct, in context, quotes after each other. I know you've put me on ignore, but the fact is...well, let's look:


It would be the worst kind of transgression were a person to sacrifice their principles for the sake of expediency.


Breaking a law is intrinsically a violation of the tenet of a stable society. It is a direct challenge of the very fabric of society and how it is governed. On the surface it would seem then that any violation of the law is immoral. The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.

Following the laws that another enacts because it is expedient when it forces you to sacrifice your principles (e.g, the Fugitive Slave Act) is highly immoral, but so is following it.

It is simply impossible to live a life never sacrificing our principles or making compromises. It is the price we pay for living with others, who do not share our world view, especially if we possess the minority view.

It would be the worst kind of transgression were a person to sacrifice their principles for the sake of expediency.
Dude!


It is possible to maintain the integrity of our conscience internally, while doing what is expedient to preserve our life, our dignity, our way of life, whatever.

These are successive paragraphs.
Then, of course, you say this:

The blacks did it for a long time in this country. The Jews in Europe too. With some pretty horrible consequences.

The next sentence, by the way. Those horrible consequences were the loss of (in order, by the way), dignity, way of life, and then life.

Do you understand why this was a very, very, very bad choice of example to make the point you intended? Everyone else does.


Knock yourself out. I tried to explain it and you ignored the opportunity, choosing instead to resort to baiting and antagonizing.

Baiting and antagonizing? Methinks thou art mistaken, and gravely so.
I expect nothing less.

Sadly, neither do I when it comes to you.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
Dude, the state has created the law. That’s what the “parameters and the punishments” are. And, the “parameters and the punishments” constitute, guess what: a system of morality! So, one more time,we see that a concept of morality or virtue is in fact built into the law.From Hooboy !!:
Nope. No more so that the rules of game are a system of morality.Let's see. Is the Constitution no more than the functional equivalent of the rules of Monopoly?

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

The Definition of Morality

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

The term “morality” can be used either

1. descriptively to refer to a code of conduct put forward by a society or,

a. some other group, such as a religion, or

b. accepted by an individual for her own behavior or

2. normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.(emphasis added)

John Adams: 1776:

Public virtue is the only foundation of republics. There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power, and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty; and this public passion must be superior to all private passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private pleasures, passions, and interests, nay, their private friendships and dearest connections, when they stand in competition with the rights of society.http://www.constitution.abc-clio.com/ReferenceDisplay.aspx?entryid=1016979

Political morality or virtue, Founding Father version. Others and myself can keep this up indefinitely. You can't escape from the fact that law and justice are founded on a system of morality. Your fetishism of obedience to the law represents your system of morality. Other people have other systems. Hence, the clash of morality, the clash over law.

Civil disobedience is a weapon in the clash over which laws are just and moral. I wonder, in the 1950s, would you have put forward your prim little definition of virtue as following the laws to the Black people of Montgomery who carried out their bus boycott? The law was immoral in their eyes. They engaged in civil disobedience to change it.

RED DAVE

[Jimmy Higgins]

So do those who practice civil disobedience. Otherwise they would become revolutionaries.Somewhat of an important distinction being made there!

On one hand you have some people doing sit ins in the US in the 60s (civil rights era) and then you have bombs going off in Spain (current era) by Basque separatists.

Mod Hat is on. Let's keep this thread on topic, not about who is or isn't being off-topic or ducking more.

[Hooboy !!]

I know you've put me on ignore
No I haven't. I have no one on my ignore list.

Baiting and antagonizing? Methinks thou art mistaken, and gravely so.
I am not mistaken.

First, I am not interested in discussing morality in a political forum. The only reason why it is included is because it is being used as justification for civil disobedience, or more precisely, for breaking the law. I am discussing rule of law. Not morality.

Second, the issue of morality was raised by those trying to justify civil disobedience. The point of this thread was to address the rationalization and show how it is morally a bankrupt position.

Third, morality is subjective. (I made this point a very very long time ago as it relates to governance). The result of this is that achieving a consensus on morality is basically impossible (and why it is ludicrous to assert that a constitution or a set of laws is a moral system), which makes the appeal to moral superiority a logical fallacy.

Fourth, my personal opinion on what is and what is not "moral" is completely irrelevant to this discussion. I bring up my POV only for the purposes of contrast. I frankly do not care if people do or do not believe that are acting morally when they commit acts of civil disobedience. The point is... it doesn't matter, except in their own minds.

There are basically two ways you are going to sway popular opinion through the exercise of civil disobedience. Either through reason or intimidation. If you have a solid argument, civil disobedience is unnecessary. If the goal is to intimidate, then they are no better than terrorists.

[Hooboy !!]

Political morality or virtue, Founding Father version. Others and myself can keep this up indefinitely. You can't escape from the fact that law and justice are founded on a system of morality. Your fetishism of obedience to the law represents your system of morality. Other people have other systems. Hence, the clash of morality, the clash over law.

"There must be a positive passion for the public good, the public interest, honor, power, and glory, established in the minds of the people, or there can be no republican government, nor any real liberty; and this public passion must be superior to all private passions." - John Adams

So, what is he saying here? What he is saying is that people must already be committed to living under the rule of law, or no amount of legislation will work. Or in other words... they must already have a moral code of conduct that is compatible with life under rule of law.

You cannot legislate morality. It is impossible.

You can define a system of government that allows moral people to live together. Hell, you can even design a system that allows people with vastly different moral systems to live together as long as they are all commited to "the public good" (in this case) and all other considerations are secondary to this. "Render Caesar's things unto Caesar."

"The public good" is an objective not a moral condition. You could just as easily have reaplaced the word "good" with "bad" and would be exactly the same thing. So, what is "public good" as a goal? Easy... Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That is not a moral system.

Civil disobedience is a weapon in the clash over which laws are just and moral.
Civil disobedience is a form of protest to alter the law. That is all. Whether it is changed or not is a function either reason or intimidation. Not morality.

[laughing dog]

First, I am not interested in discussing morality in a political forum. The only reason why it is included is because it is being used as justification for civil disobedience, or more precisely, for breaking the law. I am discussing rule of law. Not morality. A contradictory position from the titler of the thread The moral imperative, civil disobedience and from someone who writes in the same response
The point of this thread was to address the rationalization and show how it is morally a bankrupt position.


There are basically two ways you are going to sway popular opinion through the exercise of civil disobedience. Either through reason or intimidation. If you have a solid argument, civil disobedience is unnecessary. this ignores the other important function of raising awareness of the problem or its seriousness.

You keep making this claim that civil disobedience is unnecessary, but refuse to give a reason why you believe the achievements of the civil rights era would have come faster without civil disobedience. Hence, your assertion is difficult to accept.

[RED DAVE]

From Hooboy !!:
First, I am not interested in discussing morality in a political forum.So, the fact that I demonstrated that there is such a thing as political morality still escapes you.

From Hooboy !!:
The only reason why it is included is because it is being used as justification for civil disobedience, or more precisely, for breaking the law. I am discussing rule of law. Not morality.And ... one more time, it escapes you, as has been demonstrated over and over again, the law rests on morality.

From Hooboy !!:
Second, the issue of morality was raised by those trying to justify civil disobedience.Okay.

From Hooboy !!:
The point of this thread was to address the rationalization and show how it is morally a bankrupt position.Which you have utterly failed to do. All you have done is state that for you, obedience to the law is absolute, which is really a morally bankrupt position.

From Hooboy !!:
Third, morality is subjective. (I made this point a very very long time ago as it relates to governance).But no one has ever denied that on this thread. It’s a classic case of a straw man.

From Hooboy !!:
The result of this is that achieving a consensus on morality is basically impossibleTrue. So what you end up with is either a clash or moralities and one wins over the other or a compromise system.

From Hooboy !!:
(and why it is ludicrous to assert that a constitution or a set of laws is a moral system)Still banging on that drum. I suggest that you read some of the documents, letters, etc., circulated during the writing of the Constitution and see exactly how concerned the Framers were with morality/virtue.

From Hooboy !!:
which makes the appeal to moral superiority a logical fallacy.It’s not a logical fallacy at all. If there is any chance that two individuals or groups share a meta-morality that transcends their individual moralities, then moral superiority is quite logical. For instance, the civil rights movement could claim meta-values like “fair play” in order to make its moral appeal.

From Hooboy !!:
Fourth, my personal opinion on what is and what is not "moral" is completely irrelevant to this discussion.That’s a mask you’re hiding behind. In fact, it’s completely relevant. Your notion of obedience to the law, is a perfectly example of your personal opinion.

From Hooboy !!:
I bring up my POV only for the purposes of contrast. I frankly do not care if people do or do not believe that are acting morally when they commit acts of civil disobedience. The point is... it doesn't matter, except in their own minds.Or in the minds of the people they are trying to reach.

From Hooboy !!:
There are basically two ways you are going to sway popular opinion through the exercise of civil disobedience. Either through reason or intimidation.How about: emotional argument and inconvenience? And I’m sure I could come up with a few others.

From Hooboy !!:
If you have a solid argument, civil disobedience is unnecessary.Welcome to Fantasy Island, where solid, reasonable arguments hold sway.

From Hooboy !!:
If the goal is to intimidate, then they are no better than terrorists.Well, I guess according to your system, Dr. King was “no better than terrorists.”

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

If there is any chance that two individuals or groups share a meta-morality that transcends their individual moralities, then moral superiority is quite logical. For instance, the civil rights movement could claim meta-values like “fair play” in order to make its moral appeal.
No, it isn't. Just because common ground is found, does not mean that it is in any way morally superior. It only means that it is common. What is superior is the result, which is peaceful coexistence. But, this could be accomplished without ever finding common ground.

It is like the quest for the Holy Grail.

I see that I am going to have to address "political morality". It will have to wait for when I have more time though.

[RED DAVE]

From RED DAVE:
If there is any chance that two individuals or groups share a meta-morality that transcends their individual moralities, then moral superiority is quite logical. For instance, the civil rights movement could claim meta-values like “fair play” in order to make its moral appeal.From Hooboy !!:
No, it isn't. Just because common ground is found, does not mean that it is in any way morally superior.I didn't say common ground. Please read what I'm posting. I referred to a meta-morality that transcends their individual moralities." When such a situation exists, it is quite possible for one group to seize the moral high ground. The civil rights movement did this very successfully. Hence part of the reason for the success of the civil disobedience campaigns.

From Hooboy !!:
It only means that it is common. What is superior is the result, which is peaceful coexistence. But, this could be accomplished without ever finding common ground.The victories of the civil rights movement did not constitute peaceful coexistence. They constituted the victory of one group over the other in the chosen arena of conflict: civil rights. Again, the fact that the movement had the moral high ground certainly helped.

From Hooboy !!:
I see that I am going to have to address "political morality". It will have to wait for when I have more time though.I thought you said it didn't exist. I guess you've learned something.

RED DAVE

[Hooboy !!]

I didn't say common ground.
"common ground" or "share" what's the difference?

http://users.easystreet.com/ovid/philosophy/moral.html

This agrees with Plato's Forms BTW.

When such a situation exists, it is quite possible for one group to seize the moral high ground.
Not really. Meta-morality does not exist. I will agree with this. It is possible for one moral system to be compared with another to see which one best meets the objectives of society. Some are better than others. The purpose of meta-morality is simply to define a moral system that meets the goals of society. Not the system or only system. If one system can be rationally determined to meet the goals of society, while another is determined to be counter-productive, it is possible to claim one is "superior" to the other, but that is strictly an academic issue. Why? Because the "inferior" moral system does not need to change. All it must do is recognize how it is inconsistent with the goals of society and the individual simply alters their behavior. Not their beliefs or their moral system. We actually see this. Racism still exists for example. Racism still influences relationships.

What then did the civil rights movement do? Nothing, except help to make sure that all individuals are treated fairly under the law.

Here is the deal... morality is really not the issue. Behavior is. Morality may influence behavior, but it does not control or dictate behavior. There are many things that work to control behavior.

The victories of the civil rights movement did not constitute peaceful coexistence.
Yes, it did. At the root of the problem was discrimination... not racism mind you, discrimination. In other words, under the law, blacks were (may still not be) treated fairly under the law. The civil rights movement did nothing to alter people's attitudes (not entirely true). All it did was compell society to clarify the law so that it was no longer possible for blacks to be treated differently under the law.

I thought you said it didn't exist. I guess you've learned something.
Not in the way you are using the phrase. I need to complete my research before I comment on it and I gotta go pack.

[thefugitivesaint]

I wanted to return to this discussion but i don't really feel like mustering the effort to do so. I will, however, offer the following discussion, one i recommend, that relates directly to this discussion.

The social and cultural psychologist Jonathan Haidt (http://www.newyorker.com/online/video/conference/2007/haidt).
-cheers'
theSaint

[RED DAVE]

Hooboy !!, what it comes down to is that we who oppose the War in Iraq, and use civil disobedience to oppose it, have the moral high ground against you supporters of Bush's lying murderous war.

That's what this is basically all about.

Civil disobedience against this war is not terrorism. This war is state terrorism on the part of the Bush Administration and its lackeys, including the Democrats.

RED DAVE

[Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ]

First, I am not interested in discussing morality in a political forum.

The point of this thread was to address the rationalization and show how it is morally a bankrupt position.

Once again, standstill.

There are basically two ways you are going to sway popular opinion through the exercise of civil disobedience. Either through reason or intimidation. If you have a solid argument, civil disobedience is unnecessary. If the goal is to intimidate, then they are no better than terrorists.

You can have a solid argument, and yet still your grievance will fail to be redressed because of irrationality or other similar factors on the part of the poeople in charge. Case in point: Rosa Parks. No amount of solid argument was going to change their minds about letting blacks ride in the front if they so chose. Period.

What choice, then, is there?

[zorq]

Third, morality is subjective. (I made this point a very very long time ago as it relates to governance). The result of this is that achieving a consensus on morality is basically impossible (and why it is ludicrous to assert that a constitution or a set of laws is a moral system), which makes the appeal to moral superiority a logical fallacy.


This appears to be the crux of your argument for the separation of morality and governance. I think I can point out exactly where the fallacy in this is. It comes from the word consensus. Consensus was how the constitution of the USA was written. To be more specific, Compromise was exactly how the constitution was written. Each of the original framers of the constitution was forced to compromise each other’s positions when they wrote the constitution. Nobody stuck in that room in Philadelphia back in 1786 got exactly what they wanted after they walked out of it. All of the amendments to the constitution were adopted only after there had been significant discussion and compromise. And even after that discussion and compromise there were a great many people who had personal moralities which contrast starkly with the final sentiments embodied in these amendments and did not/ not come to any sort of consensus about them.


Yes, morality is highly subjective. And yes, the individual moralities of every actor involved in forming the constitution were different. But yes, the individual moralities of every actor involved influenced how the constitution was finally written. Every actor had a different sense of justice, and yet, only one sense of justice finally emerged in the pages of the constitution. Does this mean that this final sense of justice was completely separated from the senses of justice of those who wrote it? Heck no!

The constitution of the USA is less a consensus of the moralities of the actors than it is a compromise of their moralities. But that doesn't mean that Morality is completely separated from the formation of the constitution. It means that the constitution was completely written with morality in mind, but only moralities of the most influential participants at the time, or the most popular moralities among all the participants were included as foundations for the constitution.

Now back to the flaw of your argument, IS achieving a consensus on morality "impossible?"

The answer is no. I offer you the constitution of the USA as a counter example.

[RED DAVE]

Virtue [and the Constitution]

BY - John R. Vile
(Professor and chair of the Department of Political Science at Middle Tennessee State University)

http://www.constitution.abc-clio.com/ReferenceDisplay.aspx?entryid=1016979

The U.S. Constitution does not use the term "virtue." However, the idea of citizen virtue was a key concept of republicanism, and delegates discussed virtue on several occasions at the Convention.RED DAVE

[RED DAVE]

I observe that Hooboy !! is not present these days.

Perhaps it's an act of civil disobedience. :D

RED DAVE

[thefugitivesaint]

Hooboy!:
First, I am not interested in discussing morality in a political forum. The only reason why it is included is because it is being used as justification for civil disobedience, or more precisely, for breaking the law. I am discussing rule of law. Not morality.

Inaccurate assestment of history. It was YOU who first introduced the notion of morality into this issue, first in a seperate thread and then in your OP in this one.

The short answer then is all acts of civil disobedience are immoral, intrinsicially.

You make an assertion then proceed to skirt around the issue you raised yourself. It is this kind of dishonesty and distortion in your presentation that makes