So I'm writing a paper on Civil Disobedience. It's a compare/contrast essay exploring two sides of the argument and then choosing a side and defending it. I'm using Socrates as a representative advocating against CD and MLKJr & Ghandi arguing against him. I have my own views (of course) and this thread isn't about that. I'm asking, which side do you think would be easier to defend?
Philosophy 111 Help
- Thread starter The Yeti
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2008
- Messages
- 5,274
If you use the Socratic method with the aid of Socrates, you cannot fail.
Sorry I can't help more, I don't know what either Socrates, MLKj, or Ghandi say about CD.
What book of the Republic does Plato cover this subject? I'd like to take a look at it.
Sorry I can't help more, I don't know what either Socrates, MLKj, or Ghandi say about CD.
What book of the Republic does Plato cover this subject? I'd like to take a look at it.
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
They're both pretty easy to defend. But civil disobedience is the way to go since you have solid evidence to defend it.
Um, it's when he's talking with Crito while in jail awaiting execution. He basically states that because he was raised under the laws, and benefited from them, it is his moral obligation to abide by those laws. He claims that it is better to leave the country of which enforces laws that you do not agree with than to intentionally break those laws in an attempt to change the government.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. There are so many cases of civil disobedience being used to advance a society morally. So that's what I ended up doing, and tend to agree with anyway. The problem with taking that road though, is that nobody seems to agree on when civil disobedience should be used. They just all happen to agree that if used responsibly it has the capability to positively change the society.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
Well civil disobedience is usually used when social reform cannot be enacted through normal legislative means. It's something that is hard to predict because in many cases it's spontaneous. Also civil disobedience isn't about being responsible, it's about the ends justifying the means.
The problem is that civil disobedience tends to lead to violence. For instance the Black Panthers in the 70s, the India/Pakistan war or the long period of violence that happened in Northern Ireland.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2009
- Messages
- 69
In favor of CD would probably be easier. You've got more effective historical examples, appeals to authority that the layman would appreciate, and stronger moral grounds.
Yes, by responsible I meant by avoiding the latter part of your post. Even MLK wrote a tid bit about it in his "Letter from Birmingham Jail."
Very generous of you, but I emailed it to my professor last night. =p
Yeah, and that's what I ended up doing. Besides, I agree with it, it seems easier to support one's own biased opinion, but it's more fun to disagree with yourself. At least I feel that way anyhow. :glare:
- Joined
- Apr 23, 2008
- Messages
- 2,641
It's kind of impossible to avoid. The violence that comes with CD tends to be initiated by 3rd parties. Those who want to achieve the same means as those who started the CD...but have more militant ideals.
Yes, but is that the responsibility of the party engaging in CD? "An unjust law is no law at all." I believe that, eventually, a corrupt state will either fall to Criminal Disobedience or bend to the will of Civil Disobedience. An outbreak of Criminal Disobedience can be initiated without the presence of the Civil form. A separate group aiming for the same cause shouldn't be regarded as the same group overall. The two have an obvious distinction.
But I see what you are saying, that, although Criminal Disobedience can occur independently, it also follows dependently with CD. I just don't think that it is the Civil Resister's responsibility. Without the unjust law to begin with, neither of the parties would occur.
Edit: Found a quote that fits perfectly with this, wish I would have put all of this in my paper.
"Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive." -MLKJr
But I see what you are saying, that, although Criminal Disobedience can occur independently, it also follows dependently with CD. I just don't think that it is the Civil Resister's responsibility. Without the unjust law to begin with, neither of the parties would occur.
Edit: Found a quote that fits perfectly with this, wish I would have put all of this in my paper.
"Actually, we who engage in nonviolent direct action are not the creators of tension. We merely bring to the surface the hidden tension that is already alive." -MLKJr
Last edited:
