Civil Disobedience: I did not pick this topic because it fits neatly with the philosophers that we are currently studying, or because I want you all to go out and cause trouble... Instead, I think the philosophical perspectives used to justify civil disobedience by some are both interesting and timely. In addition, I think it fits nicely with some of what you have studied as juniors in US history and English.
Here's what we'll do:
Define "civil disobedience" - breaking the law in pursuit of a higher good...
The organization ACTUP (AIDS Coalition to Unleash Power) has a website with a brief history of acts of civil disobedience. Take time to read the web page alone or with a partner. Consider each of the examples as "justified" or "not justified". Be prepared to defend your choices.
Discuss: Feel free to chat about these in smaller groups or simply ponder them yourself.
- "When is it right, if ever, to break laws and oppose the state? What are the boundaries between legitimate dissent and lawlessness?"
- "Can civil disobedience lead to anarchy? to relativism? to fanaticism?"
- "I would be willing to . . ."
- "What are the responsibilities of the citizen when it comes to respecting legitimate authority?"
- In the current political "climate" in America, are there issues for which you believe civil disobedience is appropriate? Under what terms would you participate?
Going to the sources: Pick either of the following (or both) and skim them...
"On the Duty of Civil Disobedience" by Henry David Thoreau. This site from the Henry D. Thoreau homepage provides some context for the selection.
"Letter from a Birmingham Jail" by Martin Luther King, Jr.
Consider these issues for your source:
- What is the historical context for this writing?
- Do you agree or disagree with the author's main points?
- Would you have been willing to make the same sacrifices? Why or why not?
- Identify three "bumper stickers" from the work. (In other words, pick three quotes which best sum up the work.)
