I think you're missing part of the point of King's strategy (borrowed from Gandhi). Compounding the atrocity is exactly the point. The point is to make the atrocity unbearable to continue committing, from the eyes of impartial observers, the third parties you're trying to convince. The point is to show them what it takes to continue committing atrocities and make their stomachs curl.
It's one thing to say I can't go into a diner to eat. It's a whole other level to beat me bloody with a baton when I simply try to eat. People see that and wonder, "Is it worth it to stop them from eating here? What are we really trying to stop?"
Agreed, the morality of jury nullification is interesting but Brian is misapplying it to civil disobedience. Perhaps King is telling something of a noble lie in that the true purpose is to broadcast the injustice of the law, but if the punishment leads to publicity leads to sympathy leads to overturning the law then clearly this is the best moral outcome, whereas evading punishment will be extremely inefficient achieving this end.
Exactly. This essay misses the important role that “visibly unjust punishment for breaking an unjust law” played in the morality play that white society was watching. It was seeing people immorally punished for breaking an unjust law that spoke volumes to America.
In Gandhi's case, it was salt tax. One thing to impose high tax on salt and ban people from processing salt on their own, but whole other level to beat them to death for trying to do so.
I remember thinking that King had it right. We do not want people to lightly disobey laws that they disagree with. They should only break laws that they strongly find abhorrent or immoral. A good screen is to only disobey laws that we take seriously enough that we are willing to suffer the consequences. The purpose is to screen out breaking all the numerous laws and actions that we find mildly offensive or where the consequences are not so bad.
The situation with Socrates was analogous. Socrates could have fled to escape the death penalty. He chose to submit to the penalty to uphold Athens' laws.
Isn't it obvious that its much easier to promote a noble lie than a noble truth? If you promote the truth people will simply not investigate and use the logic you gave here to break crimes on a whim. So while it is more logically consistent, isn't it more socially profitable to go with King?
Or in other words:
Let's assume that every action you do legitimizes the same action to a varying level of abstraction to circles around you. So a number of people will imitate your principle, but not necessarily apply it to the same case. Let's also assume that most people that cannot do the same obvious philosophical analysis here by themselves cannot painstakingly investigate anything. If these two are true, wouldn't it make sense to promote King?
"First, it neglects a simple alternative to promoting the Noble Lie that evading or defying unjust laws is wrong. Namely: Promoting the Noble Truth that people should painstakingly investigate the justice of a law before breaking it."
Well put Bryan, yes I consider all such attempts to legitimate the Right To Rule as variants of the “[ig]Noble Lie"
Just as there are no “Good [State] Cops” so there are no “Good State Laws” to justly or unjustly “break”.
The State is immoral and criminal because it uses first physical force just as private criminals do and its “Laws” should no more be legitimized and obeyed than the Mafia’s should if they were ever to nonsensically write such.
“The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following: A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them; many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked; therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops.” Robert Higgs, Voluntaryist scholar
There is another dimension to the question: the public nature of law. By openly violating an unjust law and willingly accepting judgement, one openly opposes it. During the trial, one can argue against the justice of the law. And one distinguishes oneself from those who disobey laws sneakily because it is convenient to do so. King at least wanted a movement of people who openly opposed segregation laws. He would not have been satisfied with a whisper campaign that left the laws on the books, even if they were often violated and rarely enforced. So for him, just breaking the unjust law was insufficient.
The philosopher Bernard Gert claimed that an important meta-principle of morality is that any moral principle can have valid exceptions, so long as they are done publicly and openly. (I am probably not expressing the idea well.) This could be part of how we adapt to new circumstances or criticize ideas that might be mistaken, to challenge them openly.
On the other hand, King's approach might not work in all cases. For example, it isn't clear that the more egregious drug laws would be repealed if people started violating them openly. Supporters of the existing legislation have usually managed to frame violators as bums. And it is not the case that everyone who opposes the law wants to break it. Since I oppose the law, I encourage others to break it.
An ideal legal system would have a better mechanism for people to nullify or estop the enforcement of unjust laws.
The better thinking in case of such moral dilemmas is to consider "outside-the-box" solutions (a la Judgement of Solomon). In the case of the gay-bashing hoodlums, the obvious retort is to announce to them that you are gay and hopefully attract the ire away from the friend (and perhaps let him escape?).
Of course, personal experience of most people teaches that at the stressful moment it is hard to be creative.
I think you're missing part of the point of King's strategy (borrowed from Gandhi). Compounding the atrocity is exactly the point. The point is to make the atrocity unbearable to continue committing, from the eyes of impartial observers, the third parties you're trying to convince. The point is to show them what it takes to continue committing atrocities and make their stomachs curl.
It's one thing to say I can't go into a diner to eat. It's a whole other level to beat me bloody with a baton when I simply try to eat. People see that and wonder, "Is it worth it to stop them from eating here? What are we really trying to stop?"
Agreed, the morality of jury nullification is interesting but Brian is misapplying it to civil disobedience. Perhaps King is telling something of a noble lie in that the true purpose is to broadcast the injustice of the law, but if the punishment leads to publicity leads to sympathy leads to overturning the law then clearly this is the best moral outcome, whereas evading punishment will be extremely inefficient achieving this end.
Exactly. This essay misses the important role that “visibly unjust punishment for breaking an unjust law” played in the morality play that white society was watching. It was seeing people immorally punished for breaking an unjust law that spoke volumes to America.
In Gandhi's case, it was salt tax. One thing to impose high tax on salt and ban people from processing salt on their own, but whole other level to beat them to death for trying to do so.
I remember thinking that King had it right. We do not want people to lightly disobey laws that they disagree with. They should only break laws that they strongly find abhorrent or immoral. A good screen is to only disobey laws that we take seriously enough that we are willing to suffer the consequences. The purpose is to screen out breaking all the numerous laws and actions that we find mildly offensive or where the consequences are not so bad.
The situation with Socrates was analogous. Socrates could have fled to escape the death penalty. He chose to submit to the penalty to uphold Athens' laws.
But was Socrates wise to do so? Was accepting the punishment more just than escaping it?
Isn't it obvious that its much easier to promote a noble lie than a noble truth? If you promote the truth people will simply not investigate and use the logic you gave here to break crimes on a whim. So while it is more logically consistent, isn't it more socially profitable to go with King?
Or in other words:
Let's assume that every action you do legitimizes the same action to a varying level of abstraction to circles around you. So a number of people will imitate your principle, but not necessarily apply it to the same case. Let's also assume that most people that cannot do the same obvious philosophical analysis here by themselves cannot painstakingly investigate anything. If these two are true, wouldn't it make sense to promote King?
"First, it neglects a simple alternative to promoting the Noble Lie that evading or defying unjust laws is wrong. Namely: Promoting the Noble Truth that people should painstakingly investigate the justice of a law before breaking it."
This is pretty much St Augustine’s position. You must suffer the injustice and receive your reward in Heaven.
But I am not endorsing St Augustine’s views!
1. You argue that accepting punishment for breaking unjust laws compounds injustice. However, this view fails to recognize:
- The transformative power of willing sacrifice in nonviolent resistance
- The long-term benefits of maintaining moral integrity and building moral authority
2. While you dismiss concerns about widespread law-breaking, Gandhi's approach provides a more nuanced solution:
- It encourages thoughtful, principled resistance rather than casual law-breaking
- It maintains respect for the rule of law while challenging unjust laws (concept of constitutional morality)
- Open resistance brings attention to injustice, potentially leading to systemic change
- Collective action builds solidarity and a united front against oppression
- Accepting unjust punishment demonstrates the depth of conviction and can inspire broader social awareness.
Well put Bryan, yes I consider all such attempts to legitimate the Right To Rule as variants of the “[ig]Noble Lie"
Just as there are no “Good [State] Cops” so there are no “Good State Laws” to justly or unjustly “break”.
The State is immoral and criminal because it uses first physical force just as private criminals do and its “Laws” should no more be legitimized and obeyed than the Mafia’s should if they were ever to nonsensically write such.
“The whole Good Cop / Bad Cop question can be disposed of much more decisively. We need not enumerate what proportion of cops appears to be good or listen to someone's anecdote about his uncle Charlie, an allegedly good cop.
We need only consider the following: A cop's job is to enforce the laws, all of them; many of the laws are manifestly unjust, and some are even cruel and wicked; therefore every cop has to agree to act as an enforcer for laws that are manifestly unjust or even cruel and wicked. There are no good cops.” Robert Higgs, Voluntaryist scholar
If no one obeys no one rules.
Get free, stay free.
Ultimately King’s movement worked. Today’s movement did not.
There is another dimension to the question: the public nature of law. By openly violating an unjust law and willingly accepting judgement, one openly opposes it. During the trial, one can argue against the justice of the law. And one distinguishes oneself from those who disobey laws sneakily because it is convenient to do so. King at least wanted a movement of people who openly opposed segregation laws. He would not have been satisfied with a whisper campaign that left the laws on the books, even if they were often violated and rarely enforced. So for him, just breaking the unjust law was insufficient.
The philosopher Bernard Gert claimed that an important meta-principle of morality is that any moral principle can have valid exceptions, so long as they are done publicly and openly. (I am probably not expressing the idea well.) This could be part of how we adapt to new circumstances or criticize ideas that might be mistaken, to challenge them openly.
On the other hand, King's approach might not work in all cases. For example, it isn't clear that the more egregious drug laws would be repealed if people started violating them openly. Supporters of the existing legislation have usually managed to frame violators as bums. And it is not the case that everyone who opposes the law wants to break it. Since I oppose the law, I encourage others to break it.
An ideal legal system would have a better mechanism for people to nullify or estop the enforcement of unjust laws.
Hueme is morally right. But King's solution is better politics.
The better thinking in case of such moral dilemmas is to consider "outside-the-box" solutions (a la Judgement of Solomon). In the case of the gay-bashing hoodlums, the obvious retort is to announce to them that you are gay and hopefully attract the ire away from the friend (and perhaps let him escape?).
Of course, personal experience of most people teaches that at the stressful moment it is hard to be creative.