Civil Disobedience

Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?

In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? and 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience?

There are many governments that are overpowered and unjust to the subjects contained within them. In attempting to define what an unjust government is, I find myself taking a closer look at Martin Luther King Jr.’s letter. I also would like to keep in mind Marxism because power often corrupts. So in my own terms, an unjust government is one that rules accordingly to ruler in order to achieve more power or wealth. In a government like that, laws are made to keep the order. For example, a law may state that if anyone has a different opinion than the King will be hanged; everyone must abide by his rules whether they are right or wrong. In the society’s interest, civil disobedience would be the appropriate action to take against a society like this.

Unfortunately, I have not found a better example other than the story of Camelot and Merlin. In the story, Camelot is ruled by Uther Pendragon, who evokes many unjust rules that the society deals with in return for protection. This type of government uses power in order to rule. This would be the best scenario for civil disobedience because this is a government ran by the thoughts of an individual with power. Governments like these, according to St. Augustine, are not governments. I would agree on behalf of St. Augustine because this type of government doesn’t allow ideas to improve society by the members who live the life of poverty on a daily basis. Instead it is a government to fulfill the needs of the powerful and the rich.

Government is made up of the people that abide by the rules and conditions that are enforced. A society that must abide by unjust rules and immoral conditions is not a form of government and should reconcile the problems that would contribute to a need for civil disobedience. If we lived in a society where our opinions aren’t taken for granted, our society would never improve and history would be irrelevant.

Marxism, "Harm" Principle or Both?

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.

What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with both?

           According to Mill, freedom rests heavily on the shoulders of the “harm” principle. Government or society should not intervene in internal affairs unless harm is being done by another’s actions. In this, our society is founded but only partially. Agreeing with Mill, his ideas allow us to determine whether or not our role in society is to help those in harm’s way or let them be if they conflict harm to themselves. Contrary to the fact, an individual seeking medical help in order to commit euthanasia would be denied in the United States. It would appear that assisted suicide would be legal according to Mill principle; however, government injects into the life of the individual in order to save him from himself. This brings my argument leaning toward Marx approach of economic philosophy or Marxism. Clearly these two philosophers are searching for a “just society” but due to modern society; Marx theory behind economic philosophy would appear to be more rational. As Marx states “people cannot eat ideas but must live on the material products of labor”, portraying his status in society (599). A quote like this usually comes from someone with economic problems. I find this quote to be the utmost reality pertaining to my social class; and as the famous cliché goes, “the rich gets richer while the poor gets poorer”. As I look back into the little biographies of philosophers in this textbook, I notice that the majority of philosophical ideas that still exist today are from many philosophers with little financial problems. Marx political philosophy on the other hand, was forced to move from city to city because of the rejection his ideas built in society. Which also provides support for his argument that “the changes in society and PHILOSOPHY are the result of underlying changes in technology and the economic system” (599). Power is dominant in any society and with wealth (meaning the most property, cattle, money, wives, etc.) comes power.

           In formulating my response for this week’s post (What are your thoughts on this?), I find myself looking deeply into both Marxism and the “Harm” principle. From my analysis, I conclude that Marxism is meant to oppose government allowing power (wealth) to be divided “equally” among the individuals in a society. I am convinced with this approach toward political philosophy because in a stable society, individuals are equal. There would be no need to “hate thy boss” or organize a strike because everyone would have equal power amongst each other. Pertaining to the freedom of the individual, those with greater power should enforce “equality” in society. Hence Mill’s “harm” principle; in stating that individuals are free depending solely on their actions in society. In the example of “going on strike”, the individual would lack the finances to provide for family, which is caused by the undivided “power” from government; therefore, government should then take actions on itself accordingly to keep society from hurting itself. Both Mill and Marx approaches would help society become Just.

Week 9 Buddhism yes or no?

Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

Buddhists believe that in order for us to free ourselves from suffering itself, we must first control our desires and cravings. Personally I have questions about this approach, especially in the United States. My answer for this question will be based on relationships, as we are all aware of them and how they affect our everyday lives. Divorce rates are higher in North America globally and expose those like myself to become insecure when in a relationship. The lust for the significant other and the need for comfort lie within all couples, thus forcing our desires and needs to control us. A Buddhist would enlighten us by telling us that in order to completely rid ourselves of these potential hazardous emotions, we need to remove them from within us. In today’s day and age, I don’t know how that’s possible. If you have even been hurt, and according to polls mostly everyone has had a rough relationship, then you know how much you would actually expect from your partner; especially if it was that one person that hurt you. Although relationships are the most effective way of demonstrating how the teachings of Buddhism conflicts with our society, it is not the only reason we should doubt whether it’s possible to live accordingly to the Buddhists way of life. As a college student with an active social life, I tend to get frustrated when my assignments pile up. Many times I feel as if I am no longer connected to the outside world, especially when my week consist of two to three hours of socializing and five to six hours of sleep per day. Indeed I am suffering and am in need of a resolution; however, discontinuing my education would seem ridiculous but would end my suffering. I wonder how a Buddhist would approach this problem or this type of suffering.

Buddhism encourages us to set aside our desires and more or less, our ambitions. I have always been told that it’s important to have goals in life if there’s any chance I would want to live comfortably. Buddhism wants us to believe that these goals or desires that we have are doing us more harm by growing them. How can I possibly not build an ambition and hope to become successful? Society is America, and especially in New York, is demanding and there are always people to laugh when you quit halfway. For example, before I started college, I wanted to work in the HVAC industry because it promised a good salary and a comfortable life. Throughout the years of my technical career, I have grown to dislike that job due to the amount of bills that piled up at the end of the month. Basically I was working to pay the bill and I no longer was able to take a day off or just relax. The demanding society cancelled my previous goal and put me back at first base. I then decided I would earn an associate degree and be able to work a little more money so I can finally have a day to myself. The goal escalated as I started school and thought further on what how I would be more comfortable if I got a bachelor’s degree. So now that I’m moving into a phase that could eliminate my suffering; I’m also acquiring additional suffering. How would a Buddhist solve this problem, especially when society can be so demanding?