Forgive me if I have done this before, but I am going to present to you an assignment that I assigned when I was an English and Philosophy teacher. I will present to you three prominent works and let the listening (or reading) audience decide for themselves. I'll provide my own answer at the bottom. It may surprise some of you coming from the political wing I come from, but it something I truly believe. First, I present some reading material:
1. Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau
2. Young Person's Lyceum Speech by Abraham Lincoln
3. Letter from a Birmingham Jail by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
As for yours truly, I tend to gravitate towards Lincoln. Yes, he was a Republican, but the name didn't mean what it does today. Besides, I think he foresaw what is eventually happening today. This happens to be one of those blogs where I don't place any blame on anyone in particular. As the headline suggests, I don't think anyone intended for the subsequent events to have occurred as they have.
Abraham Lincoln was very verbose and very articulate, but he was saying something simple. Follow the law. Even if the law is wrong, follow the law. Work within the system to get the law changed, but still follow the law. Once you abandon that notion you end up breaking down the fabric that makes us who we are. We are a lawful people. Our ability to develop rules that keeps us safe is the main thing that separates us from the rest of the animal kingdom. Scientists have proven that other species can communicate with each other and may even have some kind of a language we can't decipher yet. What they do not have is the ability for rational thought.
Dr. King presents us with the idea that we should follow the law until we have exhausted all other avenues. In one sense, his blueprint for civil disobedience helped African Americans and even all people in general, achieve the kind of equality that we all envisioned. However, even the noblest of pursuits has unintended consequences. Now, people practice civil disobedience all the time. Sometimes they follow the steps he laid out and sometimes they don't. However, his vision has invited everyone to practice what he preached even if the law they object to is not unjust. It is unjust to them and that is all that matters.
So, while I respect Dr. King and honor his ideals and the peaceful way in which he lived them out, his vision is part of the problem we face today. In one generation, you had people standing up to the government for all matter of reasons. They hated Vietnam, they hated segregation, they hated Watergate, they hated poverty. They hated all of these things and all of these things were contemptible. Yet, it has spawned a generation of people that hates universal health care, an overbearing school that dares to discipline their child, war in Iraq, torture, and a president that supposedly was born elsewhere.
We are a people that used to have a grasp of what was truly important and what is trivial. Some of those things listed are trivial and some important. I suppose which is which depends on the eye of the beholder. Therein lies the rub. One side accuses the other of breaking down the walls of civility and both sides are right and wrong at the same time. My students tended to gravitate towards Thoreau and his was the most insidious of them all. He advocated simply breaking any law you don't agree with it at all times.
Democracy is a dangerous thing sometimes. We find it hard to strike the balance between speaking our mind and biting our lip. I think there was a Byrds song that called for a time for both. Then again, they were just ripping off the Bible. This is the distressing thing many of us see when we see a country of people that just don't seem to be as smart as we used to be. There is nothing quite as frustrating as seeing someone protest something that doesn't exist. The collective effect might be a government that behaves as the Beatles did when they decided not to tour anymore. They couldn't hear themselves through the shouting of the crowds. It makes you wonder how many representatives have given up on the opinions of their constitutents when their constitutents are dumber than a doornail. Get the government out of my medicare indeed.
All three of those men were good men and smart men, but even the smartest of men can sometimes advocate something dangerous. Thoreau's response is classic, but also dangerous because many of today's citizen acts more like the soldiers he describes than the free thinking individual. King had a righteous cause and a righteous method, but it has helped lead people to fight unrighteous causes with unrighteous methods. I can't help but notice that Lincoln's speech is the least known work of the three. Why? I would think because it calls for us to act responsibly and within the law. There is nothing more boring that that. Yet, I would argue that there is nothing more sacred either.
Just in...they also voted 10-5 to reject teaching students about the separation of church and state.
I'm a big fan of Thomas Aquinas actually and he has a lot of usefulness in philosophy settings independent of the Christian undertones, however, eliminating Thomas Jefferson is beyond stupid. So, I could be teaching a history class and saying, "We have this Declaration of Independence and it was written by well, you don't need to know that."
"Students, don't be alarmed that your history book goes from the second president to the fourth. It was a bookkeeping snafu, but you won't be held responsible for the Louisiana Purchase, Marbury v. Madison (since it occurred during his presidency), the development of anti-federalism as a party since he started it, or the founding of the University of Virginia."
Could you imagine tours of his home? "Hello everyone, this is Monticello. It was designed and built by some guy in the late 1700s. He was a reknown architect and lawyer of his day, but we are contractually banned from revealing his name. Thank you for coming."
We cannot pick and choose what is history and what isn't. I therefore proclaim Lyndon Johnson our greatest U.S. president because I no longer recognize Vietnam as an event. Thank you for playing, "Choose my history."
Along the lines of today's educational opportunties - or lack thereof - everyone should read what the Texas SBOE voted on. They voted (courtesy of whackjob Cynthia Dunbar) to ELIMINATE references to Thomas Jefferson in history. She had Thomas Aquinas included instead.
These rightwing people are dangerous.
Hey Scott,
I would choose differently but you make an important point. The world SHOULDN'T revolve around me and I shouldn't expect it to, no matter how great that would be for me. We are a selfish nation. Some are selfish spiritually, others monetarily, others emotionally, others morally...lots of ly's but I think it sums it up. I know I'm selfish but I sure can't think how...no, not really...I think if I was going to point a finger at myself I think I would fit in the emotionally selfish category (somehow). :O)
I apologize to my listeners/readers. I thought I had done it before, but I forgot if I did it at the Chronicle or here. I remember reading "The Crito" in college. My, those were simpler times. I remember that question being posed. I think we decided prudence although I also remember learning about "moral development" in psychology. The last stage was when someone follows the law because they recognize the need for law. The middle step is prudence. Given the moral decay of the day, I would say most people fall under prudence, but the simply way to figure it out is to ask what we would do if there were no laws. Thankfully, I think 99 percent of us wouldn't kill even if there were no law against it. Of course, that might be hopeful presumption on my part.
You have done this before!
I tend to agree more with Lincoln’s manner of thinking also, but this was certainly not always the case for me. I remember reading Socrates’ conversation with Crito when I was nineteen or so and I could not, for the life of me, understand or agree with Socrates’ position that he had no choice but to remain in Athens and accept his execution rather than escape. I guess sometime between then and now I experienced the “It’s not all about me" moment and am now inclined to agree with his position that it is never right to act unjustly, even when faced with injustice, and to disobey the law would be not be just. I know the idea to bridge Socrates and Lincoln is old and tired, but I think this is a clear similarity.
After reading your post and then rereading "The Crito", another question came to mind: Do people, at least for the most part, obey the laws of our nation because it is just to do so or simply as a matter of prudence? I think even I am guilty of the latter.