Civil Disobedience

But the Committee had decreed that Socrates was forbidden to teach what he taught, and according the Athenian law, their decrees had the force of law. So, Socrates did, indeed violate Athenian law. And he admits as much in the Apology.

Similarly, in recent times, Martin Luther King admitted that he had violated the ordinances of Birmingham, Alabama, and he spent some time in jail for that (see his Letter from a Birmingham Jail). But his defense was not that he had not violated the law, but that there was a "higher law" that he was obeying, that overrode the Birmingham ordinance.

There is always the problem of why it is that Socrates thought it right to violate one law (that forbade him to teach) and yet argued it was wrong to violate the law by escaping his death.

Wouldn't this be classic civil disobedience? He willingly and openly violated a law he thought to be wrong because he thought he should violate the law and teach. However, he accepted his punishment from the state because he was obligated to do so - if he does not face his punishment willingly, he endorses anarchy and abandons the principles which drove him to teach, despite his order to not teach.

So, maybe the issue isn't which obligation is stronger. If we disobey the law on principle, and then avoid punishment, have we abandon the principle which drove us to break the law initially?

But the fact remains that Socrates intentionally violated the law in the first instance by teaching, but refused to violate the law in the second instance, by not escaping. Whether he "made up" for violating the law is really not to the point. He should not have violated the law if he thought it was wrong to do so. You don't make it all right to violate a law by accepting punishment for doing so. (It would be absurd to argue that it was all right to murder someone as long as I accepted punishment for doing so).

Of course you do not "make up" for violating a law by accepting the punishment. But as you said, the issue was a matter of which obligation was stronger, the obligation to break the law, or the obligation to obey the law.

As for Socrates, why would his higher law obligate him to break some law, and then accept death; why would his higher law have him act against the state's decision, and then embrace the state's decision that his initial action, disobeying the state, was worthy of a death sentence? Wasn't one of the complaints that Socrates' teaching was heretical?

This higher power appeal seems to demand a higher power that cannot make up it's mind. The result, I fear, are some contradictory obligations to that higher power and to the state. How can a higher law justify obedience to a state that is worth disobeying?

The term was coined by HD Thoreau to describe public disobedience for laws considered unjust.

Uniform to acts of civil disobedience is some notion of a moral responsibility to disobey some law or directive. The objective is usually to communicate some message, namely that the law being disobeyed is unjust or wrong.

So, is civil disobedience acceptable? and if so, under what conditions?

The central point is that positive law is not moral law, and the existence of morality would dictate that we have an obligation to abide by our morals. If there exists morality, then we must obey this moral law, even if it conflicts with existing positive law.

Are there no examples of moral, positive law? What about law giving access to education, or laws that guarantee a living wage?

Perhaps, however we can be sure that positive law can be moral law. Why are such cases purely coincidental?

Are moral laws, which happen to be positive (guaranteeing access to education or a living wage, perhaps), moral for some reason, and negative moral laws moral for some other reason, or simply for their agreement with what is moral?

Perhaps, however we can be sure that positive law can be moral law. Why are such cases purely coincidental?

Are moral laws, which happen to be positive (guaranteeing access to education or a living wage, perhaps), moral for some reason, and negative moral laws moral for some other reason, or simply for their agreement with what is moral?

Morality is riddled with fallacy, if law is founded upon morality then it is sure to disrupt what would otherwise be a free society. Law should operate with regard to empiricism - what doesn't work for a positive beneficial society, what hurts people

I am not contrasting positive and negative, I am contrasting positive legalism with normative natural law. Positive laws are the work of men and governments, while a natural moral law would transcend that, being a law that is built into nature.

The only meaning I know for, "positive law" is man-made law, as contrasted with divine law, or with moral law. What do you mean by it?

Well, then what if the laws of man align with those natural laws. Are the laws of men then moral? It would seem so.

This is a normative statement about how law should operate. I don't know how you wish to establish a legal framework without a moral basis, and it doesn't appear that you do either.

But then obligation has nothing to do with it being positive law.

OK so we seem to have calculated that we should govern ourselves, but surely it was religion that invented these concepts of 'good' and 'bad', in a secular society we should not accept these terms as absolute, ultimate definitions of action x.

Moral statements can be judged true or false, in accordance to evidence and reason.

A moral statement is of how people should act. To be true, it must apply to all people, be consistent with all other known moral laws, and there be some empirical evidence that such a course of action is more desirable than the alternative.

For example we can know that a moral premise "Theft is moral" is false. The thief wishes deny ownership of an object from it's owner (denying him use of the property) while at the same time planning to assert ownership over the property (using it for his own satisfaction and protecting it from others).

We also know that property rights exist and are empirically valid, because systems completely denying them have failed before being fully implemented.