Lecture 4: Thoreau: Civil Disobedience
1. Key Issue: Freedom
a. 3 Kinds of Freedom:
i. Liberal freedom
ii. Republican freedom
iii. Spiritual freedom
b. Libertarianism / Anarchism:
c. Thoreau: libertarian of sorts: limited government
2. Thoreau: Life & context
3 issues:
3. Legitimacy of the US government in particular:
a. it is a slave state
b. it is conducting an unjust war (Mexico)
US gov not worthy of association
4. Nature of political obligation: arguments for civil disobedience
a. right of revolution
b. some moral constraints regardless of costs (i.e., cost-benefit analysis not enough) (31)
c. no duty to eradicate evil, but duty to not contribute to evil (33)
i. Negative Duties
ii. Justice vs Law
iii. Duty is Disobedience, not Democratic participation
-critique of patriotism:
d. abolitionists should withdraw support from gov
c. effectiveness of disobedience
e. Principles of Legitimacy:
a. normal justification: if it can do better than me (47)
b. consent of individual
5. Best form of government in principle
-no government best (27); for now want better government
a. Majority rule:
b. => limited government: sphere of conscience
-notice: not obligation to act according to right, but according to what I think is right
c. Best gov: recognizes individual as highest power (47)
-Q: is this viable?
Questions:
1. Socrates vs Thoreau?
2. Is Thoreau trying to avoid tacit consent?
3. Anarchy? what about the order argument?
4. Can any government meet the standard?
5. What do you make of Thoreau's individualism?
6.Tension b/w subjectivism vs. objectivism and b/w consent vs. normal justification thesis:
What if the individual's conscience is wrong about a moral matter? I.e., what if the government has a law you object to, even though your objection is based on immoral reasoning or a corrupt conscience?
-e.g. you believe in slavery
7. Consequentionalist objection: what if your disobedience actually results in greater injustice to others? i.e., the consequence is harm?
-then isn't "washing your hands clean" just a form of avoiding political responsibility? moral grandstanding?