Is civil disobedience acceptable? (Venue: Starbucks)

(Scroll down for topic intro)

THE VENUE: Starbucks

It is now autumn, so we will meet indoors for the next few months.

When we meet indoors, we run the same event in two locations: Caffè Nero and Starbucks, so as to provide capacity for as many people who would like to attend, without overwhelming any one venue. Thus, there will be two events published, and you can choose which one to attend. Please don't sign up for both. This event is for the Starbucks location.

We meet upstairs at Starbucks. An organiser will be present from 10.45. We are not charged for use of the space so it would be good if everyone bought at least one drink.

An attendee limit has been set so as not to overwhelm the venue.

Etiquette
Our discussions are friendly and open. We are a discussion group, not a for-and-against debating society. But it helps if we try to stay on topic. And we should not talk over others, interrupt them, or try to dominate the conversation.

There is often a waiting list for places, so please cancel your attendance as soon as possible if you subsequently find you can't come.

WhatsApp groups
We have two WhatsApp groups. One is to notify events, including extra events such as meeting for a meal or a drink during the week which we don't normally put on the Meetup site. The other is for open discussion of whatever topics occur to people. If you would like to join either or both groups, please send a note of the phone number you would like to use to Richard Baron on: website.audible238@passmail.net. (This is an alias that can be discarded if it attracts spam, hence the odd words.)

THE TOPIC: Is civil disobedience acceptable?

This week's topic has been prepared by Duncan, using this essay from 1000-word Philosophy.

Sometimes people break the law to try to change a law or policy that they see as unjust. For example, during the American Civil Rights Movement, Black activists sat at “whites-only” lunch counters to protest racial segregation. More recently in the UK, climate activists have blocked roads and superglued themselves to airliners. Supporters of the Palestinian cause broke into factories owned by Israeli companies and caused damage.

These are cases of civil disobedience. But what exactly is civil disobedience? Can it be justified? If so, under what conditions? And what should happen to people who engage in civil disobedience? Should they be punished? Or should they be praised?

Civil disobedience is commonly understood to be:

1. illegal;
2. conscientious: civil disobedients - people who engage in civil disobedience - are motivated by a sincere belief that a law or policy is unjust;
3. nonviolent;
4. public: civil disobedience is not anonymous or covert;
5. persuasive: civil disobedients aim to change a law or policy by convincing the public that it is unjust through words and actions that express their moral convictions;
6. non-evasive: civil disobedients do not try to escape punishment.

Many people think we are usually morally obligated to obey the law. But few people think we must obey all laws, no matter how unjust: e.g., you may believe that it was not morally wrong to help enslaved people seek freedom because slavery was unjust and laws prohibiting helping people escape slavery were also unjust.

Just as almost nobody argues that all laws must be obeyed, few people argue that all civil disobedience is wrong. So when might civil disobedience be morally justified? And what limits should be set? e.g. is it ok to damage property but not to injure other people?

It is common to think that people should be punished when they break the law. But some argue that to punish a crime is to express that it is morally wrong, and since justified civil disobedience is not morally wrong, it should not be punished. Others argue that all civil disobedience should be punished, even when it’s morally justified. They reason that if the government did not punish justified civil disobedience, that would encourage people to engage in civil disobedience whenever they think it is justified.

Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. believed that individuals must accept the legal consequences of breaking a law to awaken the community's conscience

Should civil disobedients be liable for civil claims? Should you be able to sue someone if their actions caused you significant consequential loss? e.g. if you miss an important business meeting or medical appointment.

Other than significant examples from history, can we think of any more recent instances of civil disobedience?

We look forward to welcoming you on Sunday. It's entirely up to you whether you choose to obey our code of etiquette.