Civil Disobedience and Voluntary Punishment

TopicIn a functioning democracy, those who commit acts of civil disobedience against morally dubious laws or practices ought to voluntarily accept punishment for their act of disobedience. Introduction: As I am taking the con position in this debate, I can see two methods for proving my case: 1) The resolution makes a moral claim. If my opponent cannot present a sound case for objective morality, then I can easily take the stance of moral relativism/nihilism to show that no person “ought” to do anything. 2) I can present a sound objective morality, and in that moral framework, show that it is immoral to voluntarily accept punishment for acts of disobedience against morally dubious laws. Subjective Morality: There are multiple moral theories that exist in contemporary intellectual discourse. However, each of these theories are flawed by fallacies. This is known as the grounding problem of ethics. For example: In utilitarianism, the precept is to cause the greatest number of good for the greatest number of people. Now, this begs the question. What is the greatest good? Happiness/pleasure? What makes happiness the aim? Because it is good? This is circular reasoning. Another example: Divine command theory is plagued by the Euthyphro dilemma. Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? This theory doesn't explain where goodness comes from. If my opponent cannot present a solid ground for morality, then the alternative position, moral relativism, must be conceded to be true. If my opponent concedes moral relativism, then no person “ought” to do anything, including the resolution. Objective Morality: Thomas Aquinas' argument from efficient cause shows that there is a necessary first cause to the universe. (1) The metaphysical proof shows that there is one continuous creator of all else that is. (2) This unconditioned reality, the first cause of the universe, is something that exists in itself. Given that it eternally exists, and created all other things to exist, it is necessary that the fundamental principle of reality is existence itself. So, murder is wrong because it is a negation of existence, which goes against the intended purpose. Now, creation itself is a multitude of information systems, increasing in complexity. A human has more complexity than a mere bug or animal, so its intended purpose to exist is much stronger and superior. The human is able to contemplate its own purpose, so the destruction of a bug or animal lacks the moral equality of the destruction of a human. Given that the most basic moral principle is existence, it follows that the principle for human societies to follow is to flourish. A way for a society to achieve this is to limit the amount of violence that occurs. A simple principle of life is the non-aggression principle. People should not initiate force on others. Causing harm on others goes against existence, so causing force is wrong. Laws of Society: In the ideal society, the laws should reflect moral principles. Lawmakers are not creating morality arbitrarily, rather, they are supposed to be the translators of morality. For example- recently, gay marriage is something that was legalized in all of America. The lawmakers were not making the claim that gay marriage was NOW a human right, and past societies were justified in preventing consenting adults to a marriage license, rather, they were stating that gay marriage was always moral and were changing the laws to finally be in accordance with morality. Now, imagine a law that initiates force on people that aren't committing any wrongdoing. Imagine that people are choosing to smoke a drug, like marijuana, and this doesn't affect anyone else. In America, people who freely choose to make non-violent decisions on their own bodies are violently attacked and locked up. Some people may feel that this is unjust, and may wish to disobey these laws. Punishment: It is morally wrong to give an unworthy punishment. An unworthy punishment is essentially violating the non-aggression principle. A morally righteous person should want to prevent injustice. So, if they do something moral, and they are unjustly threatened to punishment, they ought to prevent that injustice from happening. Suffering: Human suffering is an evil, and a morally righteous person would attempt to prevent it. For example, if a person witnessed a cop beating a victim, they ought not to wait, call for other police to assess the situation to see if its justified, and then hope that the victim survives. Instead, the person ought to prevent the cop from killing a victim, even thought that itself is breaking the law. If there is a law, like the war on drugs, that initiates force on others, a morally righteous person ought to prevent the aggression as immediately as possible. They ought to help others resist arrest, rather than go through the means of attempting to sway voters to change their minds in the next voting cycle to change the law. Here is an analogy to show how unrealistic that logic is: Imagine you visit a doctor and they prescribe you medicine. However, everyday you suffer severe side affects. You perceive that you may be allergic to the drug, and wish to stop taking it right away. However, others are telling you that you should continue taking the poisonous concoction, and wait for the “proper channels”; you should keep taking the medicine until you visit the doctor and they allow you to switch medication. Conclusion: I have presented a basis for objective morality, and in that framework I have shown that people are morally obligated to resist punishment when disobeying unjust laws. If my opponent refutes my objective moral framework, they then have to provide their own moral justifications to show that it is immoral to avoid punishment. If they cannot provide an objective moral framework, then they must concede that moral relativism is all that there is, nullifying any “ought” claim. References: 1 http://philosophy.lander.edu... 2 http://magisgodwiki.org...