Insurrection: Philosophy Forums

Calendar

Quick Links open

New Posts Member List

Help

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Politics and Law » Insurrection » Insurrection

Insurrection
The duty of rebellion

Insurrection

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/04/08 - 06:31 PM: Subject: Insurrection	#1
When does a person have cause to rebel against unjust authority? When does that cause become a duty? I say the right and the duty to rebel come at the same time and they come the moment the government fails to fill its purpose as protector and collective will of the society [of individuals]. Armed, open rebellion is not always necessary, direct confrontation with the offending law can be a simple and effective solution, as when Ghandi gathered salt from the sea. Confronting government when it fails in its purpose is an immediate and pressing duty as soon as the failure is noted. Failing in your duty simply passes the problem onto your children, a violation of every moral and natural law I know of.
_____________________ It is what it is.

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/05/08 - 05:26 PM:	#2
Absolutely Relative wrote: I say the right and the duty to rebel come at the same time and they come the moment the government fails to fill its purpose as protector and collective will of the society [of individuals]... Confronting government when it fails in its purpose is an immediate and pressing duty as soon as the failure is noted. Failing in your duty simply passes the problem onto your children, a violation of every moral and natural law I know of. My two cents on this question is that there is a deep divide between "right" and "duty". The moral denotations of a duty imply an imperative: that is what you must do, or else you are immoral. To say that one has a duty to rebel is to strap upon him much meta-ethical baggage. It would certainly be in one's best interests not to bring one's child up in a world of repression and vice, but to say that a man has a duty to sacrifice himself to a cause for his children is insane. In the end, you're just replacing one lack of freedom (from the unjust government) with another lack of freedom (from duty).
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

Absolutely Relative
[Aspiring] Stoic.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2008
Location: Asia
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 58

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:58 AM:	#3
So, freedom from one thing is slavery to another. In my mind, my argument stands.
_____________________ It is what it is.

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:12 AM:	#4
Well, we have a duty to protect our freedom, have we not? If you have a choice to stand up against a corrupt government that is taking away your freedoms, chosing to do your duty to protect your freedom will preserve it, while not doing so will diminish it. It is not like you are left without a choice, but rather that you are left without a morally indifferent choice.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

The_Rational_Animal
Übermensch

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Mar 21, 2008
Location: München, Germany
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 137

Posted 05/10/08 - 07:17 AM:	#5
Absolutely Relative wrote: In my mind, my argument stands. It does, but only because your name is "Absolutely Relative". keda wrote: Well, we have a duty to protect our freedom, have we not? If you have a choice to stand up against a corrupt government that is taking away your freedoms If it is a duty, what makes standing up against a corrupt government a choice? If it is a duty, then it is in between moral and immoral. Deciding to not do your moral "duty" is immoral, not amoral ("morally indifferent").
_____________________ "Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." ~Ayn Rand

Carl_Schmitt
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 10, 2008
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 05/10/08 - 06:02 PM:	#6
The classical teaching of a right to resistance draws a distinction between the tyrant that obtains power legally but then commits illegal acts, and the tyrant that achieves power through extra-legal avenues. The acts of the former are adjured illegal, and insurrection against the tyrant is therefore a legal obligation. The acts of the latter have no basis in legality, and resistance is therefore an act determined by extra-legal criteria, such as ethical precepts that might confer a duty to resist, or political criteria that might compel one to defend one's way of life.

WW_III_ANGRY
All knowing prick

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 06, 2008
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 68

Posted 05/11/08 - 07:37 AM:	#7
Absolutely Relative wrote: When does a person have cause to rebel against unjust authority? When does that cause become a duty? I say the right and the duty to rebel come at the same time and they come the moment the government fails to fill its purpose as protector and collective will of the society [of individuals]. Armed, open rebellion is not always necessary, direct confrontation with the offending law can be a simple and effective solution, as when Ghandi gathered salt from the sea. Confronting government when it fails in its purpose is an immediate and pressing duty as soon as the failure is noted. Failing in your duty simply passes the problem onto your children, a violation of every moral and natural law I know of. When does a person have cause? I think it is different for any individual. I myself have just cause myself I believe. However, it is unnecessary at this point. I can take more abuse and neglect from the powers that be and still survive and live a happy life. When that becomes impossible I think it will be necessary for me to do what I need to do to ensure my way of life. On a whole, I believe it works the same way.

DarkHorse
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 14, 2008
Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 36

Posted 05/16/08 - 06:29 PM:	#8
WW_III_ANGRY wrote: When does a person have cause? I think it is different for any individual. I myself have just cause myself I believe. However, it is unnecessary at this point. I can take more abuse and neglect from the powers that be and still survive and live a happy life. When that becomes impossible I think it will be necessary for me to do what I need to do to ensure my way of life. On a whole, I believe it works the same way. Wait, what's a 'happy life'. Happiness can be relative. The cliche about being able to put a frog in a pot of cold water, then slowly raise the heat, and eventually boil the frog to death comes to mind. Without meaning to put words in your mouth (err, keyboard), are you saying that government can take away whatever rights it wants as long as it does it really slowly? I seem to remember something about revolution being justified, '...when a long train of abuses and usurpations pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce [you] under absolute despotism...' This meaning, from my view, that only after you have been losing rights for a long time, and it looks like you will keep losing them, only THEN do you have the right and duty to throw off such government. Ironically, this only works if the right of revolution has not yet been revoked. (That is, you can always revolt, but the powers that be can make it very very difficult for you to do so effectively). Hoka Hey!
_____________________ History is the only laboratory we have in which to test the consequences of thought.--Etienne Gilson

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.