Peter Singer Civil Disobedience Five Stories 1 Oscar
Peter Singer Civil Disobedience
Five Stories 1. Oscar Schindler, defying the Nazis, employed and saved 1200 Jews. 2. The Animal Liberation Front, thwarted experiments by Thomas Gennarelli. 3. Operation Rescue shut down abortion clinics. 4. Bob Brown blockaded roads to dam the Franklin River, in Tasmania. 5. Activists in Washington D. C. protested the Capitol Power Plant, that used coal.
Civil Disobedience ▪ Singer quotes Mc. Kibben and Berry, who say ▪ There are moments in a nation or planets history when may be necessary for some to break the law in order to bear witness to an evil, bring it wider attention, and to push for correction. ▪ Sometimes, the ends justify civil disobedience.
Conscience ▪ Henry David Thoreau, famously, noted that we must never sacrifice our consciences to the state. ▪ Conscience comes first. ▪ The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do any time what I think is right. ▪ Robert Paul Wolff, anarchist philosopher, says we must the same. ▪ Wolff notes how there is always a conflict between the individual and the state.
What is Conscience? ▪ As Singer notes, conscience is not so simple. ▪ After all, in all the cases above, people are following their consciences. ▪ But they are not the same. ▪ Conscience might be thought of as just some intuition, like an internal voice. ▪ Or, it might be the product of our reasoning.
Conscience and Reasoning ▪ As Singer notes, Thoreau and Wolff surely mean that conscience is reasoning. ▪ Conscience implies reasoning. ▪ Decisions about obeying the law are ethical decisions that the law itself cannot settle for us. ▪ So, law and conscience are different. ▪ And, only ethical theories, deliberations, etc. , can show us how this is.
Ethical Laws? ▪ Singer asks if there any ethical reasons to follow the law? ▪ Two of these are ▪ When we obey laws, we contribute to a decision procedure for all, and so, benefit. ▪ When we break laws, though, the community incurs enforcement costs, and so all suffer. ▪ So generally, the law benefits all, and flouting it hurts all. ▪ But in disobedience contexts, these two reasons do not hold.
Legal Channels? ▪ Still, Singer notes, perhaps civil disobedience is only justified within legal channels. ▪ Often, such channels exist, but are ineffective, corrupt, or otherwise worthless. ▪ When we take the perspective of those involved in the disobedience, it is easy to see that the existence of legal channels resolves nothing. ▪ Such legal channels may even be an impediment. ▪ Legal channels, by themselves, are no guide to actions being justified or not.
Approval of the Majority? ▪ Perhaps, Singer notes, when legal channels for some protest fail, the majority disapproves. ▪ Should then the protesters give up? ▪ Singer notes that this argument is unpersuasive, for two reasons.
Two Objections to the Majority ▪ Laws are often not really the product of majority approval. Instead, laws are often chosen indirectly, and not representative of anything. ▪ Majority approval is often arrived at by prejudice, and irrationality. So, it can be insane, harmful, and worth opposing. When majority approval is worth opposing, relying on it is just a dodge.
Democracy ▪ Still, Singer says, we cannot just break with majority rule whenever we want to. ▪ Democracy, after all, is valuable. ▪ A method of settling disputes in which no one has greater ultimate power than anyone else is a method that can be recommended to all as a fair compromise between claims to power. ▪ When we agree to this compromise, we sacrifice. ▪ But as Singer says, majority opinion is not always right. Often, it needs to be opposed.
Civil Disobedience Justified ▪ Sometimes, Singer notes, civil disobedience does not challenge majority opinion. ▪ It can just be consciousness raising. ▪ Such disobedience shows respect for law. ▪ Such disobedience, actually, is an attempt to restore the proper process of decision making.
Justification and Coercion ▪ Sometimes, civil disobedience is done against majority opinion. ▪ When public opinion is crazy, changing it is good. ▪ But it is hard to say when things are serious enough to justify in doing this. ▪ Again, who should make such decisions? ▪ When civil disobedience is against the majority, it is harder to justify.
Conscience Again? ▪ Yet, Singer says we each must try to figure out when this is. ▪ The only answer is that we must decide for ourselves on which side the particular cases fall. There is no other way of deciding. ▪ Sure, but this seems really vague.
Terrorism ▪ Violence, Singer says, is harder to defend. ▪ But it assumes the validity of the acts verses omissions distinction. • Suppose you have the opportunity to assassinate a tyrant who is systematically murdering the opposition, and he would be replaced by a popular opposition leader, who would restore law and order. ▪ Yet, you would be responsible for your acts and your omissions. ▪ When you omit, that has consequences too.
- Slides: 15