Week 12 - Civil disobediance

This week we’ve been discussing arguments for and against civil disobedience, from Socrates to Martin Luther King.

Socrates is held to be “one of the classic spokespersons for opposing civil disobedience” because he did not feel that there was any justification for violating the law. As a citizen of the Athenian state, he believed that he had “entered into an implied contract” which required that he obey the commands of the State. This did not mean that Socrates agreed with everything commanded by the state (including his death sentence), but when he failed to convince his fellow citizens of his arguments, he felt compelled to accept his fate. To escape execution would have meant a loss of integrity.

Interestingly, Martin Luther King invoked Socrates as he argued for civil disobedience in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail”. Martin Luther King compares Socrates’ need “to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths…” through his dialectic method to methods that King and others employed as “non-violent gadflies”.  King’s civil disobedience techniques, including sit-ins and marches, were meant to create “…the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood."

I agree with St. Augustine, Gandhi and Martin Luther King, that some laws are unjust and should not be obeyed.  We’ve seen it with the racist Jim Crow laws in our own country, Nazi Germany, the racist caste system instituted in South Africa and we’re also seeing it today as gay couples are denied the basic right to marry in most states and the legal protections that right affords. I heard many stories growing up from older family members about the discrimination they endured because of the color of their skin. All of these struggles against injustice have been long and difficult.

I went searching for the exact quote made by Frederick Douglass during the era of slavery that points to the need for civil disobedience to me:  “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them..."

I believe that there are clearly times when nothing will change by having discussions, or pleading for change. Sometimes you have to do something dramatic that brings the issue to the forefront, particularly when no other methods have worked. I think the Occupy Wall Street movement comes out of the frustration of seeing a succession of politicians elected and no discernible change, of seeing the scales of justice in the legal system weighed in favor of the powerful. I’ve heard some pundits say that the OWS people are just wasting their time, that they failed to do anything real, but one thing is for sure, the debate has changed. For the first time in a long time, people and the media are talking about the injustice of the favoritism toward the very rich and the increasing gap between the haves and have-nots.

Week 11 - The individual and the State

This week we've been studying the political philosophies of ninteenth century philosphers John Stuart Mill and Karl Marx.

John Stuart Mill, much like present day libertarians, promoted the philosophy that preserving the rights of the individual is the most important factor in producing the best, happiest society overall. He thought that government should regulate far less and have very limited power to exert it's will on our personal lives. He was concerned that the individual be adequately protected from the tyranny of the majority.

Karl Marx in contrast believed that a collectivist style of government which ensured the rights of all workers, eliminated class divisions and curtailed the individual's right to accumulate great wealth for himself at the expense of others, would result in the the most freedom for society. Marx was concerned that the working class proletariat should be adequately protected from the tyranny of the bourgeois capitalist.

I wouldn't consider myself absolutely in agreement with either philosopher, although both had valuable things to say. It's fascinating that their ideas about government seemed so diametrically opposed to each other - Mill arguing for less government control and Marx arguing for stronger government control. We continue to see these basic arguments being played out in current political campaigns.

While I agree with the classical liberal idea that we must guard against too much government intrusion into our personal lives and the importance of preserving free speech and expression, I can't agree that merely being free to make your own choices makes for the ideal society.

Our discussion about Mill reminds me of one of the recent Republican presidential candidate debates. The Republican audience cheered as the moderator asked libertarian Ron Paul if he'd be willing to let a young man die who had not purchased health insurance. As I remember, Paul, sounding very influenced by John Stuart Mill, said that the man had the right to make his own risky decision not to have health insurance and that the government should not be involved in either forcing him to have insurance or paying for his treatment. Paul says that he longs for the days when people just took care of each other instead of relying on government assistance. I think this sentiment is really naive and could have catastrophic effects if implemented as policy.

Due to our population's size and complexity, and the fact that all of us don't have really good friends or family members who can take care of us, requires that we maintain a social safety net administered by government. The current cost of health care means that you would need a small city's worth of good friends to take care of you if you end up needing help with a severe illness and hospitalization. Many don't have health insurance even though they are working full time.  I think it is the government's role to step in sometimes when necessary to enforce regulations or provide assistance. Social security was established back in the 1930s because there were a lot of destitute elderly people who didn't have anyone to help them. While this might seem paternalistic to a classical liberal, I think it is essential to a civilized, compassionate society.

Marx's view of capitalism as a system which inevitably results in exploitation with the capitalist doing everything to make a profit at the expense of the individual makes a lot of sense. However, I think that there is no system devised by human beings which does not avoid some kind of class or caste system. I think it would be naive to believe in a communist utopia in which all individuals are equals and no one is exploited. Finding a way to implement some form of Marx's ideas, particularly when it comes to providing free (or at least affordable) education and medical care for all would make a lot of people's lives much better.

Marx's quote from the "Communist Manifesto"  that "private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; it's existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths." could not be a more timely idea. One can't help thinking of the Occupy Wall Street movement's slogan proclaiming "we are the 99 percent"  The sentiment is eerily similar as protesters express their outrage at being exploited by the weatlthy.

I think the best solution is some mix of individual freedom and government protection and regulation. There is inevitable tension between these two concepts as we continually try to figure out what works and what is best for our society.

Week 9 - Buddhism, desires and suffering

This week we have been discussing the "problem of evil", suffering and Theistic, Hindu and Buddhist approaches to this topic. I find the philosophy of Buddhism to be a very practical way to handle the reality of suffering in life with a simple (but not easy) roadmap of 4 noble truths: 1) We accept that suffering exists, 2) our selfish cravings and desires create suffering, 3) there is a way to end suffering and 4) the way to end suffering is through enlightened living.

I believe that it is quite possible to live according to the teachings of the Buddha in the contemporary United States, but much of popular culture encourages a mode of thinking that contrasts sharply with it. We are taught first of all to mostly look for the causes of suffering outside ourselves instead of focusing on how our reactions to painful events make us suffer. We are almost of the mindset that we should have little or no pain at all.  We expect to have discomforts eliminated, to be perpetually entertained, never bored. Our consumer culture encourages us to constantly want the next new great product that will make our lives wonderful. When we always focus on our desire for things to be different than they are in reality, we suffer unnecessarily. We can accept that suffering exists, and live the best life we can without making our inevitable pain worse. It reminds me of a time when I was about 10 years old and had to get a shot at the doctor's office that I wasn't looking forward to. I spent so much time worrying myself sick that the time leading up to the shot was far more unpleasant than the momentary pain of the injection itself.

We are also taught to look for answers outside of ourselves. If we read the right book or join the right club or religion or purchase the right thing, we can get receive the solutions to all of our problems, but it really isn't that easy. When the Buddha said "Be ye lamps unto yourselves", I think he was saying that we each have to find our own way to the truth and it cannot be a passive process.

As a culture, we seem to be in denial about old age, sickness and death. We avoid open and honest discussions of the harsh realities of aging and end of life issues because they are unpleasant. As the Buddha discovered when he left the sheltered confines of his palace, these are all inevitable stages (if we live long enough to get to be old) yet we often go through our lives as though these things won't ever happen to us. In a materialistic and consumer oriented society, the impermanence and transitory nature of all things as expressed in Buddhist philosophy may not be the most popular concept.

I was especially struck by the ancient story of the desperate grieving woman who goes to the Buddha in hopes that he will be able to revive her dead child. The Buddha, in response to her request, instructs her to collect mustard seeds from every household that has not experienced a death. When the mother is of course unsuccessful, she realizes that  "everyone she had met had been touched by the sorrow of death". In seeing the pain of others, she stops focusing exclusively on her own pain and therein comes to an acceptance of her child's death. This is a perfect example of detaching from our "narrow concern with ourselves", thereby ending our suffering. The woman still misses her deceased child, but she no longer makes her own pain worse by denying death and only thinking of herself.