1. Provide a case of uncivil obedience that isnt mentioned in the article and show that it fits
Bulman-Pozen and Pozens definition.
a. You may either find a real case, or you may fabricate a potential case based on a
real law which could be the subject of a protest by uncivil obedience.
2. Give your own argument for or against the following conclusion:
a. Despite participants obeying all positive law, uncivil obedience is still sometimes morally wrong.
Sample Answer
Sample Answer
Uncivil Obedience: A Case Study
Introduction
Uncivil obedience, as defined by Bulman-Pozen and Pozen, refers to a form of political protest where individuals openly break the law while accepting legal consequences in order to challenge unjust laws or policies. This presentation will explore a hypothetical case of uncivil obedience and evaluate whether it aligns with the definition provided by Bulman-Pozen and Pozen.
Case Study: The Right to Shelter Movement
Imagine a scenario where a group of activists in a major city decides to engage in uncivil obedience to protest against the lack of sufficient shelters for the homeless population. The activists intentionally violate a city ordinance that prohibits camping in public spaces by setting up a makeshift shelter in a park. They are aware of the legal repercussions but argue that their actions are necessary to draw attention to the dire need for adequate shelter for the homeless.
Analysis based on Bulman-Pozen and Pozen’s Definition
According to Bulman-Pozen and Pozen, uncivil obedience involves a deliberate violation of the law with an acceptance of legal consequences as a means of challenging unjust laws or policies. In the case of the Right to Shelter Movement, the activists are openly breaking a law (camping in public spaces) to bring attention to the unjust policy of inadequate shelter provisions for the homeless. By willingly accepting the legal consequences, they are engaging in uncivil obedience as per the defined criteria.
Argument on the Morality of Uncivil Obedience
For the Conclusion: Uncivil Obedience Can Be Morally Wrong
While participants in uncivil obedience may be challenging unjust laws or policies, it can still be argued that engaging in such actions is sometimes morally wrong. The deliberate violation of laws, even with noble intentions, undermines the rule of law and may set a precedent for disregarding legal structures designed to maintain order and justice in society. It could lead to a slippery slope where individuals justify any form of disobedience based on personal beliefs, potentially causing chaos and anarchy.
Against the Conclusion: Uncivil Obedience Is Justified
On the other hand, one could argue that uncivil obedience is sometimes morally justified when faced with systemic injustices that cannot be effectively addressed through traditional legal channels. By openly challenging unjust laws and policies, individuals participating in uncivil obedience may bring attention to social issues that would otherwise go unnoticed or ignored. In such cases, breaking the law can be seen as a necessary act of civil disobedience to prompt positive change and uphold higher moral principles.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the case study of the Right to Shelter Movement exemplifies how uncivil obedience can be used as a form of political protest to challenge unjust policies. While the morality of uncivil obedience remains a subject of debate, it is essential to consider the context and motivations behind such actions in determining their ethical implications. Ultimately, the balance between upholding the rule of law and advocating for social justice is a complex ethical dilemma that requires careful consideration and deliberation.
