Here are the proposed answers so far.
We can/should violate laws:
1. When you are in a position to change the law through your disobedience.
2. Only in extreme circumstances
3. When the law is unjust
4. When the law violates inalienable rights
5. When the law prohibits exercising freedom of conscience
6. Something else?
1.
The problem here is it's results driven. Can you realistically know whether your actions will have the desired affect before breaking the law? Supposing Shadrack, Meshack and Abedego would not have changed the law by refusing to worship the idol of Nebuchadnezzar II, should they have worshiped the idol? I think the answer must be no.
2.
I agree that we should only disobey the laws in extreme circumstances. I just don't know that this test gives us much guidance to identify which circumstances warrant disregarding the law.
3.
This is the Martin Luther King Jr. argument. I think all sorts of well intentioned laws are "unjust" under his definition of "degrading human personality" and would be continually violating laws if I subscribed to this argument. Also, is the constitution unjust before the civil rights amendments, back when slaves and women could not vote?
4.
This is question begging. What are inalienable rights? Again maybe, but how do we recognize these rights.
5.
This may be close, but I fear that freedom of conscience may not be broad enough to justify all the circumstances were we think civil disobedience was justified. It works for the Shadrack example. Does it justify the american revolution? Maybe. What about the civil disobedience in the civil rights movement? eh, probably not. I'm currently leaning toward this one.
Other suggestions?
4 comments:
What is the central question for both of these posts? Are you looking at the Church's stance in particular or on what one's personal stance should be? Are you more curious about civil disobedience or outright revolution?
On the Church, I was surprised when I first learned about the extent to which we should be obedient to unjust laws, yet at the same time I can see why. There is obviously a difference between civil disobedience and revolution, but it could be dangerous to keep one from spiraling into the other.
As I remember, Kant stated a similar position in his essay "Perpetual Peace" (I believe I wrote a paper on it). I think the central argument, against revolution at least, is that it's a very costly affair and should be avoided at almost all costs.
As for your list, I just watched the first couple of episodes of an HBO miniseries on John Adams (based on the McCullough book) and he was portrayed as a pacifist lawyer who revered the law. The turning point for him seemed to have have been #4 (denial of inalienable rights). Much of the opposition within the continental congress to declaring independence appeared to be around #1; many people didn't believe that the revolution could possibly succeed.
It makes me wonder if revolution should be avoided if there is no chance for success. I think of demonstrations in China, Iran, etc. Were these mistakes as the government seemed to fully suppress the movements? On the other hand I see such martyrs as fueling the spirit of liberty whether in their own countries or in others around the world.
As I watched the Adams movie I thought that I might not have been able to vote for revolution unless I had a testimony that it was the right thing to do. There were just so many issues and uncertainties around the whole situation.
Not a very useful legal argument, but I submit #6 - It's ok to disobey law when God tells you to.
I'm just looking for an articulable principle that we can use to determine when civil disobedience is justified. As far as I can tell, the church hasn't articulated a specific position. I was using those scriptures for potential principles or jumping points.
I guess I feel like we all sort of have a sense for when civil disobedience is justified, but can't articulate when that would be. And certainly there are some close calls, and it would help to know what facts and circumstances to look for in those situations.
I think perhaps the problem here is that we can't draw a bright line rule. These are questions that probably have multiple factors that need to be taken into account.
You/Kant are right that there is some cost/benefit analysis that should be undertaken. The likelihood of changing the law is probably one major benefit that may be the tipping point in many instances. Still, I have the sense that Shadrack, Meshack and Abednego would not have followed the law, even if they had burned in the fiery furnace. Some repressive laws warrant civil disobedience regardless of the costs and benefits.
Wouldn't the fact that Shadrack, Meshack, and Abednego were captives make their case somewhat different? Though they were given certain privileges, I don't see the tenet of being "subject to kings..." as applying to a captor.
What about other Babylonian citizens who were not captives, but were ordered by Nebuchadnezzar to worship his statute: should they have submitted to the king's dictate?
Post a Comment