November 13, 2006
-
Civil Disobedience and Heros
This week Socrates_Cafe is discussing Civil Disobedience and the nature of Heros. I'll address both here.
When is civil disobedience (refusal to abide by the laws of your state/society) justified?
What is a Hero?Thoreau claimed that we should never obey an "unjust" law. We should use our moral and ethical understanding and beliefs as the measuring rod and refuse to support or obey any law that didn't "measure up". He also thought we should be willing to take responsibility for our actions and be willing to accept whatever punishment the law meted out for such disobedience, trusting that our moral courage would be recognized and help overturn or alter the injustice.
Socrates, according to Plato's work Crito thought that civic responsibility included a social contract between the state and the individual that demanded that the virtuous man obey the laws, no matter his opinion of them.
In some circumstances civil disobedience has led to dramatic changes as those in India due to Ghandi's actions; but in a democracy, where the ability to change the laws resides in the voter's will, there is little justification for civil disobedience. Rather such behavior most often suggests a selfish desire for immediate action rather than the tedious effort necessary to change a law.As a Hero is considered to be one who embodies the best moral values of the society and who by heroic effort changes or benefits the society dramatically, societies tend to see successful disobedient activists as heroic even if they were despised at the time, some of yesterday's villains may be tomorrow's heros.
Nations tend to recognize individual citizens who have made extraordinary effort or sacrifice for the good of the nation as heroic; the military even has a sort of heroic classification system with awards for varying degrees of heroism ranging from the Congressional Medal of Honor to the Bronze Star and Purple Heart Medals.
Heros certainly are agents of change. Whether or not they are the prime movers or the embodiment of larger social forces and movements is a matter of debate - i.e. Did Napoleon change the makeup of European civilization , or was he simply the personification of the revolutionary spirit of the age?
Comments (5)
Is a hero really one who embodies the best moral values of society? What about the guy who prevented a woman from shooting President Ford. A noble and heroic act, but the guy turned out to be gay, something totally against the established moral values of society, if not now, then at the time. Wouldn't he still be considered a hero?
"In some circumstances civil disobedience has led to dramatic changes as those in India due to Ghandi's actions; but in a democracy, where the ability to change the laws resides in the voter's will, there is little justification for civil disobedience. Rather such behavior most often suggests a selfish desire for immediate action rather than the tedious effort necessary to change a law."
I couldn't disagree more. Would you say that the civil disobedience movement in the US spearheaded by Martin Luther King had "little justification" merely because it took place in a democracy? That the people involved were acting out a "selfish desire for immediate action" rather than using the most peaceful and efficacious means available to them to enact real social change? Maybe I'm cynical, but I think civil disobedience is one of the most important resources available to democratic systems--we need it to keep them in line. Like Thoreau, MLK believed that the disobedient must accept the legal consequences for their actions with dignity; This is one of the overriding elements that mark "civil" disobedience from politically motivated crime.
How important is it for a hero to embody the "best moral values" of his or her own society? Was Napoleon a hero, even though he was, in hindsight, morally dubious (speaking in terms of the moral system in France of the time,) or does it matter more that he enacted change and was seen as the embodiment of the zeitgeist?
I said "most often" not always
I lived through the Civil rights movement and was even a very minor participant. For every MLK, there were several Stokley Carmichael, Eldridge Cleaver, Huey Newton, and Bobby Seal lookalikes all of whom urged violent action. Was there a need for that movement? Absolutely. Was it responsible for the Civil rights acts of 1964? Probably not totally. Kennedy's assassination was a more immediate cause of congressional action.
King was a real American Hero, without doubt.
We tend to use the term Hero rather loosely. Many of those we call heros today will be forgotten. Napoleon will not. As I understand it he is still the most admired Frenchman - at least by the French. Historic American heros are a mixed bunch - who would you include?
I'm not sure who I'd include in my heroes list . . .MLK earns a vote, though. An American hero should stand up against an illegitimate status quo, imho. Goes with the theoretical foundations of the country.
I think the "not being forgotten" part is definitely something that goes into the definition of "hero" (at least historically . . .in the world of the Greeks this was almost the whole definition, except that you had to do something 'morally' worthy of earning that fame. I'm thinking of Odysseus and Achilles, here. The point was to be remembered.)
Could you message me with some tips on how you made your blog look this good , I would be appreciative!