On Civil Disobedience

First of all, do you conspire with Mrs. Allen, Ms. Kimball? Because the last few blogs are scarily similar to things we have bee discussing in Philosophy. This is not to say that I don’t mind, because I really am loving the way several of my classes (this one, Philosophy, and Art History) are spilling into each other this year. 

The most popular argument (and also the most convincing, I think) for the worth of society is the idea of the social contract. I’m sure you will see a mention of Social Contract Theory in the majority of these blog postings and for good reason. Of course, there is the caveat that all of us have been born and grew up in a culture that has adopted almost completely the political philosophies of the Enlightenment; it’s possible I have set up a false dichotomy and cannot conceive of any kind of legitimate society whose premise is any different than that of the social contract.

The social contract is essentially a trade off between the citizens and their government. In sacrificing some of their natural rights and agreeing to abide by certain societal codes, such as practicing good hygiene or following laws. The purpose of government becomes to protect the “natural and unalienable” rights of its citizens, as Thomas Jefferson put it; should it default on its responsibilities, protest or open rebellion is excusable and perhaps even morally obligatory. This school of thought has moved from just American democratic thought to international foreign policy. More recently, the concept of “responsibility to protect,” though somewhat unpopular, has redefined sovereignty. R2P is really a repackaged version of Social Contract Theory; a sovereign nation has certain duties that include protecting its citizens and should they fail in meeting those obligations, other nations or international bodies are within their rights to intervene. Western justification of government is based upon what it does for its people.  society is not self justifying. 

Like Gilgamesh realized, society, while limiting certain means of self expression or certain rights, brings within reach far greater accomplishments. Society’s net gain is positive. As a means of payment of sorts, we sacrifice certain liberties. We may tolerate bureaucratic red tape on the grounds that in many other cases, it preserves order and enables and ensures results. Perhaps we also excuse flaws in a societal norm or law because on the whole, they do good. In justifying society, we can become utilitarian as well; even law ostracizes a minority, it is still acceptable if it benefits the majority. For those that believe in the pragmatic value of society, the creation of laws, although always flawed, are necessary for the function of society to continue. Imagine for example, if everyone decided for themselves what code of ethics they were going to follow. Sure, one blanket law code may leave a lot of gray area or clash with individual principles, but if it in the long run, it allows business to continue and society to prevail. For example, many feel that assigning value to a life is morally distasteful, but in order to reconcile death with societal institutions and legal channels, insurance companies must set a price on life. The overall benefit that society creates for its citizens are what justifies its existence and our continuing loyalty to it. However, society has much more of a responsibility to the individual. We keep speaking of society as a separate, tangible entity in and of itself; however, it’s actually completely dependent on the people who consent to be governed. Society is completely dependent on the individuals who compose it. 

Thus, if there are certainly cases where it is justifiable to disobey or overthrow society. According to Social Contract Theory, this would occur when government no longer serves the purpose it promised to fulfill. Of course, that is extremely nebulous territory (judging whether government has fulfilled its promises in protecting the rights of its citizens) because in many cases, government’s actions helps some and alternately hurts others. For some, there is a higher law than legislative law (think MLK’s idea of unjust laws) and when the more inferior -- legislative law -- seems to violate this higher, moral law, individuals are morally obligated to disobey the unjust law. I believe that not all morals are laws and not all laws are moral. There are certainly some moral principles that probably lie outside of law’s domain and some laws merely exist for the sake of operation (for example, life insurance or affirmative action). Laws, in my opinions, don’t exist to set into legislative stone moral principles; they serve completely pragmatic purposes, such as making society run as effectively (efficiency is secondary) as possible, which means that moral laws are often incorporated into law. This means that moral law can theoretically be a basis for civil disobedience, but it rarely should be. Furthermore, this is when the method of civil disobedience of the law becomes the more important question to ask. Does simply not following the law count? Must I go out of my way to flagrantly disobey social edict? How do I decide what to disobey? If I disobey a law because it violates some personal principle, does this mean that I have to disobey every single law I don’t agree with? Is disobedience worth the consequences?

Personally, I like to look at the consequences of an action rather than the inherent value of the action itself; thus, going to jail for disobedience does not make me feel any better if it doesn’t accomplish anything. Thoreau would have disagreed. I take a similar pragmatic approach to law; its primary function is to preserve the existence of society. Usually, the most effective way to do so is to satisfy the populace, which is why law usually caters to protecting peoples’ rights. Thus, if I were to commit an act of civil disobedience, I would have to see what effect my action would have, how that might affect society as a whole, and whether there was a net gain or loss if I carry through. I know that’s an extremely wishy-washy answer. 

Self-Awareness

To know oneself it to employ a bit of doublethink. Knowing thyself is awareness of one’s strengths, flaws, characteristics, and likely behavioral trends. Self awareness is a lot like metacognition; being self aware involves the ability to observe and understand oneself as if one were looking down upon or had direct insight into the workings of one’s mind. A popular visual, and one that is intuitive in most humans at an early age, is ultimately dualistic. We imagine an entity, another being of some sort, being able to watch our minds work like a giant television screen. Our minds can even seem like they have a mind of their own and can be treated separately from the body. In any case, one who is perfectly self-aware can objectively analyze his or her own behavior and thoughts, and at the same time, go through with them. This is what I mean by doublethink. I can’t really imagine a person, who, being aware of all their flaws, makes a conscious effort to correct them all. Most of the time, we are vaguely aware of things about ourselves that aren’t always pleasant, yet don’t feel any particular motivation to change negative characteristics. In fact, I often preface actions that I know will irritate my mom to no end by citing my flawed characteristic and then proceeding to demonstrate, once again, why such behavior is counted among my negative characteristics. That could be just pure laziness rather than doublethink. However, a self-aware individual can understand beyond what he or she sees and comprehends. They understand that their subjective interpretations are probably not the only understanding existing and that their viewpoint is almost certainly skewed. This is very difficult. It is comparable to looking at a visual illusion, which capitalizes on your brain’s natural predispositions to interpret images in certain ways, while telling yourself that what you see isn’t actually what’s there. No matter how much you know that your brain is tricking you, it is near impossible to see past what is easiest to see. 

The value in self-awareness was recognized very early on by Greek philosophers, such as Plato. If we all “knew ourselves” we wouldn’t suffer from our own caprices or the limits of our subjective understandings. If objective understanding isn’t possible, at least we can understand that things exist beyond our own minds. And once we understand our own limits, we can begin to search for absolute truths and greater understanding, instead of being confined to our own minds. 

I think I’m pretty self-aware, but then again, that is one of my weaknesses. I like to think that I am a reasonable confident person, but it is possible that I am just terrible unaware of myself. I hold the firm belief that success often depends on the attitude you take; in fact, I spent most of last year doing a science experiment testing this idea. However, perhaps my overweening confidence in my own abilities and my own self-awareness demonstrate the exact opposite. It could just be that my own belief in myself shows how far I have to go in my path to self-awareness. Of course I don’t think that I am wrong, and really, I cannot see where I can be wrong most of the time, but the more self-aware side of me tells me that there is no way I cannot be faultless in my judgements and perceptions. I guess the only thing I can do is the keep my mind open to the opinions of other people, which I have tried to do. However, this gets tiring and is extremely inefficient when making certain decisions, and some people are really stupid anyways. I’m not being elitist; I speak the truth. I’m self-aware, dammit! Obviously, I’m just joking, but achieving self-awareness is like trying to measure the position and velocity of a particle; the harder one tries to measure the particle, the more one disrupts the actual velocity/position of the particle. The more I  try to achieve self-awareness, the farther it slips away from my grasp. Instead, I should “strive for nonstriving.” 

My best quality? Only one? But there are so many to choose from! Let’s see...I think that I am a pretty objective person. I think that I am able to let go of my personal biases to a certain extent. Oftentimes, I don’t have an opinion on certain things simply because either side is logically sound and to make an opinion, I would have to base my decision on emotion rather than solid information. Similarly, my objectivity allows me to see things in a way that others don’t; I don’t like people very much when I think that way and most actions begin to look silly and conformist as well. Fortunately I can snap out of this if I want and change into my normal persona where I am motivated by strange emotional urges and feel the need to fit in. 

The problem with achieving self-awareness is, as explained above already, that one cannot ascertain whether one has achieved self-awareness. An individual who does so is usually still hopelessly deluded or obnoxiously overconfident. The second problem is our own hubris. We (or I at least) like to think that I’m right in my opinions. Why else would I have them if I knew that they were wrong? Self-awareness teaches us, however, that what we believe may be, in reality, limited and short-sighted. Perhaps a self-aware individual even realizes that he or she may never achieve an objectiveness in thought, which is an incredibly depressing thought. It’s a bit like the story of Job, where good actions don’t necessarily merit prosperity. Why be good if there is no guarantee of reward? Similarly, why pursue any kind of independent thought if you know that achieving objectivity is a futile and wasted effort? For further discussion, you can look at one of my two college essays, but the point is that I feel tiny, insignificant and useless when it comes to self-awareness. I was watching a movie in Philosophy in which one character, his afro pulsating in beat to his frenetic, psychedelic surroundings (the images alone were enough to bother me), stated that the ultimate self-awareness was acceptance that one could just be a character in someone else’s dream. What I think and perceive could be, and probably is, entirely wrong, but now even my convictions on my own identity and/or existence can be completely incorrect. The terrible thought has just gripped me that I could be a figment of someone else’s imagination, and I cannot think of a way to disprove the notion. It’ll just have to keep it in mind.