|
An Argument
For Civil Disobedience
Josh McNary
The laws and regulations of a state primarily
reflect the interests and values of the status
quo, and are often intended, ideally, to provide
for what the majority considers to be the common
good. What then is a citizen to do when he feels
that a law is unjust1 and that adherence to the law
would constitute a breach of conscience? Furthermore,
does following his conscience morally supercede
adhering to the will of the state?2
One must first identify who is involved in such
a struggle. According to Thoreau, there exists
three types of men. The first serve the state
with their bodies. They exercise no judgement
and allow themselves to become pawns. These include
the military and police and make up largest of
the three. The second serve the state with their
heads. These include politicians and ministers. The
third serve the state with their consciences through
resistance and are therefore often treated as enemies.
Civil disobedients make up this third type of men
(Thoreau 266).
The actions of such men often impact the lives
of those whom they are both fighting for and against.
The tension that exists within a society during
times of civil turmoil is often expressed by the
society’s youth. This is primarily due to
the fact that as students, many are often challenged
with progressive ideas and that the exuberance of youth
often leads one to evolve such new ideas in the face
of entrenched standards. Traditionally this has lead
to conflict between the generations. This tension
can also lead conservative members of society
to resist changes that upset the status quo. An
example of such an occurrence is the growth of
Ku Klux Klan during the Civil Rights movement.
As proven in the 1960’s, especially in Alabama,
such resistance can lead to violence.
Moral civil disobedience has taken place for centuries
around the world. What differentiates disobedience
in first century Rome as opposed to twentieth
century Alabama is the punishment involved: death
in Rome, jail in Alabama. For the purpose of this
paper I will exclude any discussion of civil disobedience
prior to the nineteenth century due to the fact
that disobedience within a liberal state3
is a phenomenon of the last three centuries.
Why then should an individual disobey? It is well
known that in a criminal case, any individual
who is aware of the crime prior to it taking place
and does not notify the authorities can be charged
as an accomplice. Likewise, an individual who
recognizes injustice yet, in action4,
remains indifferent may be held liable for indirectly
furthering it.
An individual who feels that the actions of the
state are unjust would certainly be influenced
by his beliefs and social position. A man versed
in Christian doctrine who finds himself disenfranchised
by the state is likely to view the situation in
terms of religious morality and favor direct disobedience5.
The man who stands outside the situation and recognizes
the injustice yet is not affected by it is more
likely to favor indirect disobedience. According
to Lyons, there then ceases to be a distinction
between lawful and unlawful resistance because
"Few, if any, human societies have been free of
significant, deeply entrenched, systematic injustice."
Indeed, those with grievances significant enough
to warrant perilous conflict do not typically
embrace "a favorable appraisal of the prevailing
system" and therefore do not consider themselves
morally bound to obey laws that seem to them as
unjust.
Among the values involved with civil disobedience,
we must first consider whether or not the individual
has the right to be critical of his society? The
state, according to John Locke, is an institution
that was devised by individuals seeking protection
of their natural rights6. Assuming
human beings are moral agents, the state must therefore
be a moral institution. In forming the state, Locke
argues that members must concede certain rights in order
to provide for the common good7. However,
if the state abuses Mr. Green’s8
concession by infringing upon his natural rights,
Mr. Green may indeed be critical. "For all power
given with trust for the attaining of an end,
being limited by that end, whenever that end is
manifestly neglected or opposed, the trust [in
government] must necessarily be forfeited (Locke
139)." The citizen’s formal vehicles of
critique then become his vote and his right to petition.
It must be noted that in order for an individual to
be critical of the state he must be familiar with its
workings or else he runs the risk of making uninformed
conclusions. Furthermore, if an individual is
granted the right to vote or petition his representatives
and refrains from doing so, his critiques lose
credibility on the premise that his inactivity
is morally wrong.
At this point it is necessary to recognize that
moral civil disobedience does not lend itself
to the furtherance of ideologies. An ideology
involves one’s relationship or membership
in social categories, gender, race, and class. An ideology
does not seek the common good, rather the good of the
group. An example of an ideology is the Nazi party’s
platform of the 1930’s. The party sought
economic growth, national pride and political
prestige for a majority of the population at the
expense of several minorities who were characterized
as sub-human and subsequently exterminated. The
party sought to further their own interests, yet
by ignoring those of others in society, their
actions were unjust.
But what makes the individual’s conscience
supreme to the state? This involves the assumption
that the state is a tool of the people. For an
individual to judge the morality of an action,
he must have a standard with which to judge that
action by. For a Christian, this standard would
be the Gospels. If Green were to view military
service as immoral in light of Mt 6:399,
he would therefore be bound to his convictions. A breach
of these convictions would constitute an immoral act
because he is subverting his beliefs for those of
others and by doing so is placing worldly standards
before Heavenly standards.10
Another value involved is that of political obligation.
Assuming that Mr. Green is a citizen, he is morally
obligated to be involved in his government. According
to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Luria
v. U.S., citizenship is equivalent to membership
in a political society. This means that as a citizen,
Green reaps the benefits of his membership within
society and due to the concept of fairness, is
obligated to share in the burdens of society.
The court ruled that for Green to not participate
in society, he is unfairly taking advantage of the work
of others and is therefore, morally wrong in doing so
(Hall). This obligation to be an active and productive
citizen has also been termed Social Justice. While
the court’s ruling is logically sound, it
ignores the fact that a minor percent of the population
has given conscious consent to the rules of government
(Hall).
This lack of consent has particularly become apparent
during times of crisis. During the Vietnam War,
young men across the nation defied the draft on
the concept that they lacked the right to vote
and therefore were not given the opportunity to
voice their opposition to a war they were being sent
to fight. It is during such instances that civil disobedience
becomes an issue.
The concept of moral civil disobedience contains
a number of values. Civil disobedience has been
defined as "principled nonviolent disobedience
to law (Lyons)." Participation in civil disobedience
therefore requires the following:
1) A law that not only actively
disenfranchises a group but is also defended
by the status quo11.
2) The failure of the legal courses
of action provided for the individual to
express his concerns. This includes events
and circumstances that prevent the individual
from exercising his constitutional rights
(ex: Jim Crow laws).
3) A non-violent approach as presented
by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., "the means
we use must be as pure as the ends we seek
(King 6)."
4) The understanding that although
an individual is objecting to a particular
law, he is still subject to the laws of
the land and that by disobeying the law,
the individual becomes subject to criminal
punishment.
5) Support in the concept that justice
requires tension.
In order to understand these points, the need
arises to determine the nature of justice. The
Hebrew definition of justice as fidelity to
the demands of a relationship lends itself well
to the discussion at hand. When the government is not
faithful to the demands of its relationship with the
people, that is to say it does not ensure citizen Green’s
natural rights, it has committed an unjust act
and, as will be argued, Green has the right to
disobey. In his "Letter from Birmingham City Jail",
Dr. King quotes St, Augustine: "An unjust law
is no law at all". King goes on to differentiate
between just and unjust laws. A just law:
1) "Is a man-made code that
squares with the moral law or the law of
God"
2) "[Is] any law that uplifts
human personality"
3) "Is a code that a majority
compels a minority to follow that it is
willing to follow itself"
On the contrary, an unjust law:
1) "Is a code that is
out of harmony with the moral law"
2) "[Is] any law that
degrades human personality"
3) "Is a code inflicted
upon a minority which that minority had
no part in enacting or creating because
they did not have the unhampered right to
vote(King 4)"
It has been stated that because government is
a human invention, a certain amount of injustice
will always exist. In "Civil Disobedience", Thoreau
states that "If the injustice is part of the necessary
friction of the machine of government, let it
go: perchance it will wear smooth." He then admits,
however, that "if it is of such a nature that
it requires you to be the agent of injustice to
another, then, I say, break the law (Thoreau 268)."
In the case of Dr, King, the law in question was
a series of laws known collectively as "Jim Crow".
These laws sought to limit the influence of African
Americans economically and politically and provided
for segregation. Dr. King chose Birmingham, Alabama
as his battleground against the Jim Crow laws
because "injustice is here…Injustice anywhere
is a threat to justice everywhere (King 4)." The
particular injustices that Dr. King was referring
to include police brutality, unjust treatment of Negroes
in the city’s court system, and bombings of Negro homes
and churches.
One of the factors contributing to the monolithic
nature of the Jim Crow laws was the fact that
they were supported by the status quo which, throughout
the South, was composed primarily of white, Anglo-Saxon
Protestants. King labels this majority as the
privileged group and recognizes that such groups
are reluctant to concede their privileges voluntarily.
Indeed, as Reinhold Niebuhr has expressed, although
an individual may be willing to give up such an
unjust position, the group is incapable of expressing
this sacrifice(Niebuhr 84).
Although points two through four from page seven
are self-explanatory, the final requirement for
participation in civil disobedience requires some
distinction. According to King, the development
of justice requires tension. Assuming that a certain
amount of injustice is inevitable, the absence of tension
between groups in a society suggests that the existing
injustice is being tolerated. When a group of
disobedients allows this hidden tension to surface,
they are "[exposing it] to the light of human
conscience and the air of national opinion (King
5)."
What then are the consequences of civil disobedience?
One must recognize that when breaking the law,
one becomes subject to punishment. To attempt
to escape this punishment is counter to the aims
of moral civil disobedience. A disobedient cannot
expect the state to meet him on his terms if he is not
willing to meet the state on its terms.12
Both Thoreau and King spent time in jail13
. According to Thoreau, "Under a government which
imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just
man is also a prison…the only place in
a slave state that a just man can abide with honor
(268)." In the case of King, it can be argued
that his disobedience to the status quo cost him
his life. When one considers the consequences
of disobedience one must question whether or not
they are consistent with the values that one seeks
to ensure. In the case of Thoreau, his disobedience
laid the foundation for future generations of civil
disobedients including King. In the case of King, his
disobedience fueled a movement that led to the end of
segregation and the development of equal opportunity
for all races.
When applied, the ideas of Reinhold Niebuhr do
indeed have a great deal to say concerning civil
disobedience. For Niebuhr, love is the highest
principle for Christian ethics. His concept of
love falls under two categories: mutual and self-sacrificial.
Mutual love, the most common, is marked by concern
for another yet is never free from concern for
ones-self. Self-sacrificial love is characterized
by an absence of personal consideration and is symbolized
by Jesus giving His life for mankind. This type of love
however, is extremely rare and is only exhibited
by the individual; never the group. If this form
of love was pervasive, there would be no need
for justice because no individual would act at
the expense of another. According to Niebuhr "no
nation in history has ever been known to be purely
unselfish in the slightest degree (Lebacqz 85)".
The concept of equality emerges from his discussion
of love and becomes Niebuhr’s highest standard
of justice. As a principle that can be regulated,
equality remains the most feasible social goal (Lebacqz
89).
Niebuhr also states that sin is composed of two
dimensions. The first dimension deals with the
tendency to believe that one’s view of the
truth is indeed the truth. A civil disobedient must
therefore always be open to critiques of his ideas and
the possibility that his arguments are faulty or else,
according to Niebuhr, his actions may be deemed sinful.
The second dimension the Niebuhr notes is the
assertion of self over others. According to Niebuhr,
"sin is always trying to be strong at the expense
of someone else (Lebacqz 84)". Consequently, any
policy that ensures the dominance of a group by
disenfranchises another is sinful.
For Niebuhr, justice, particularly economic justice,
requires two elements: political participation
and the use of power. He argues that sinful individuals
will never willingly concede their power, therefore;
justice involves coercion14. Niebuhr
claims that when an individual chooses to place
his conscience before the state, he can make no distinction
between violent and non-violent forms of coercion and
it is on this point that King strongly disagrees.
"The fight for injustice will always be a fight
(Lebacqz 90)." By recognizing the inevitability
of sin and injustice, Niebuhr’s arguments
retain their potency.
Another author, Jose Porfiro Miranda15
views justice as the search for liberation and
see Christians as committed to this search. In
developing the concept of liberation theology,
Miranda refuses "to conceal the conflictive nature
if society under the cloak of generic, innocent-looking
terminology (Lebacqz 102)." Evolving into a Marxist
concept of class conflict, Miranda claims that contemporary
history is characterized by the division of oppressor
and oppressed. Consequently, salvation involves
both spiritual wellbeing and social justice.
For Miranda, Liberation involves social revolution
in order to create both a new person and a new
society. While Niebuhr suggests a balance of power,
Miranda demands a transfer of power. Furthermore,
Miranda views violence by a subjugator as evil,
while violence by the subjugated in search of
liberation as just (Lebacqz 102-3). By viewing injustice
as the by-product of institutions the goal of liberation
becomes an attack the entire system that fuels it rather
than isolated instances of injustice.
Making reference to the Old Testament16
, Miranda states that biblical justice means justice
for the poor. He argues that the Old Testament
is the story of God liberating the poor and that
the beatitude "blessed are the poor" suggests
that they are not liberated out of personal virtue
but simply because they are poor. This leads to
Miranda to claim that the poor are the litmus
test for justice (Lebacqz 107).
Justice therefore requires a liberating act that
is characterized by God’s treatment of the
poor and oppressed To liberate the oppressed is
be just. Miranda’s argument concludes with
the notion that there is no separation between love
and justice and that God’s love is his liberation of
the poor and oppressed (Lebacqz 107).
It remains clear that Miranda is in favor of upsetting
the status quo. By equating justice with liberation,
he is essentially stating that any individual
seeking to be just must disobey that which furthers
oppression. The fact remains that Miranda sees
no alternative to a violent revolution, an event
that is opposed by King and Thoreau.
Although civil disobedience may lead to the harm
of both the individual and the society, such wounds
heal proportionally faster than those inflicted
by entrenched injustice. As an example, the social
tension that characterized the 1960’s has
failed to remain as prevalent as the racial tensions
that continue to exist 150 years after the abolition
of slavery.
What then does the Gospel call us to? According
to Matthew’s account of the Sermon on the
Mount, Jesus states that those who are called
to be disciples will often meet opposition from
the status quo. In such a case, the individual
must give God’s calling priority. Likewise, when forced
to choose between one’s morals and the demands of
government, one’s morals must receive priority.
It remains clear that when forced with the moral
choice, an individual must seek to further justice
and not involve himself in any action that enables
injustice to prevail. Consequently, when asked
by the state to perform or support an act that
he views as unjust, the individual is justified
in defying the state. In theory, if all the citizens
in a democratic state sought to participate in legitimate
civil disobedience, there would be no need to disobey
because a mandate from the majority would exist
and that which is viewed as unjust would be changed.
Endnotes
1
The concepts of justice and injustice will be
discussed on subsequent pages.
2
For the purposes of this paper, I will focus
upon the two most notable American civil disobedients
of the past two centuries: Henry David Thoreau
and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
3
A state which provides for the representation
of its people and strives to place the power to
rule in their hands.
4
According to Thoreau, the world is full of men
who, in opinion, are against injustice yet sit
on their hands doing "nothing in earnest and with
effect (Thoreau 267)." "The road to hell is paved
with good intentions".
5
Boycotts, sit-ins, etc.
6
According to Locke, Life, Liberty, and the pursuit
of Property.
7
Common Good: The sum of those conditions
of social life, which allow social groups and
their individual members relatively thorough and
ready access to their own fulfillment.
8
The title Mr. Green will be used as an expression
of the common man
9
Mt 6:39 "…But if anyone strikes you on
the right cheek, turn the other also."
10
Mt 10:37 "Whoever loves father or mother more
than me is not worthy of me…"
11
Due to both the protocol involved in changing
a law and the time that it takes for a law’s
effects to be seen, acts of civil disobedience
are not commonplace and often consume the disobedient’s
life.
12 However, if the institutions
of the state are not regulated and imprisonment
would mean death, as in the case of disobedients
to Stalin, assuming the disobedient has not committed
a great felony, which again would be counter to
moral civil disobedience, the disobedient can be
seen as having a right to flee such punishment.
13 Upon release from jail,
both men were viewed as radicals. Thoreau’s
reference to his neighbors as "summer weather
friends (270)" exemplifies the alienation often
experienced by the disobedient.
14 Coercion according to
Niebuhr involves a minority placing tension upon
the unjust majority. This concept of tension is
mirrored by King.
15 Miranda’s arguments
are particularly aimed at the nations of South
America.
16 Lebacqz 103-4
Works Cited
Journals:
Hall,
Mark and George Klosko. "Political Obligation
and the United States Supreme Court", The Journal
of Politics, Vol. 60, No. 2, May 1998, Pp.
462-80.
Lyons,
David. "Moral Judgement, Historical Reality, and
Civil Disobedience", Philosophy and Public
Affairs, Volume 27, Number 1, winter 1998,
p31-49
Thoreau,
Henry David. "Civil Disobedience". The Humanities
in Western Culture. Calmann, London: 1996.
Locke,
John. "Two Treatises of Government". The Humanities
in Western Culture. Calmann, London: 1996.
King,
Dr. Martin Luther Jr. "Letter from a Birmingham
City Jail (April 16, 1963). LSU press. www.lib.lsu.edu/lib/chem/display/srs214.html
Books:
Lebacqz,
Karen. Six Theories of Justice. Minneapolis,
Augsberg: 1986.
|
