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.
No comments:
Post a Comment