Week 12: Civil Disobedience

Under what conditions is it morally justified to break the law?

In what sort of cases would you endorse civil disobedience? In your answer, think about 1) how you would define the idea of an unjust or immoral law. Would you agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all'? and 2) what cases (if any) would count in your view as legitimate uses of civil disobedience? For some examples, take a look at the Wikipedia article on civil disobedience.

Civil disobedience is the society’s cry for help, boundaries have to be crossed in order to get a point across.

When unjust laws and unfair laws are passed I believe it is necessary to resist and break the law. Laws that would interfere with a person’s life in a negative way would fall under this category. People who have made these laws have not considered ALL of the people and their individual situations, as to why they would need to resist these enforcements. For example two people that have been in love for ten years have established their lives with each other, made plans for their future and in that future they see a wedding for themselves to celebrate their love and unity. However the American Public has made limiting laws in which states it is legal to allow gay marriages, which means if in certain states the two same sex people can not have a wedding because of the horrific restrictions the law has enforced upon them. These laws are unjust; as every situation and every relationship is different why outlaw the people who would like to marry a same sex couple? It is ruining their chances to celebrate love and legally establish their unity.

An unjust/immoral law is anything that proves ignorance to the society and is disregarded, argued, and constantly trying to be changed but instead broken. Think of my statement any way you want, everyone will think of a different set of laws when it comes to it. However if it in anyway comes in between you and your moral beliefs then I believe it is problematic and unjust, it is simply not right.

“Unjust law is not law” is a head on statement as for me. The law was created on a basis of regulations and restrictions, limiting people’s actions in society and the public. I believe that everyone has a subconscious that knows what is right and what is wrong, no matter how strongly we agree with or deny that fact. It is a metaphysical thing that can not be explained by any list of laws that the government can enforce on us. Humans have a mind that explores the depths of right and wrong and an unjust law can trigger that part of a humans mind directing it to ignore the law for it is not right. It doesn’t sit well with individuals therefore it will be omitted and broken.

I am not a big government person myself, I believe that any law that doesn’t sit well with the public should be cautioned and fought with an act of civil disobedience. The government wants a perfect society where everyone is quiet obeys the big guys (them) and doesn’t ask questions. Everyone is flawed and whoever makes any law that doesn’t seem just to the people who make up that civilization should be disobeyed to the highest extent.

Week 11: Marx & Mills

Classical liberals like Mill usually argue that so long as you aren't being coerced or forced to do something by the state, then you are free. People sympathetic to Marx are likely to argue that freedom requires that we are protected from forms of coercion that stem from economic disparities, and that this perhaps requires some kind of active state intervention to make sure that we are free to make our own economic choices.
What are your thoughts on this? Do you agree with Mill or Marx? Or perhaps a little with  both? 

Ah the topic of freedom what a controversial thing! 

I can't help but side with both of these wonderful men for their clear philosophical standpoints on freedom. Mills made it clear to us that living in harmony with a non oppressive government is what gives us freedom and Marx strongly expressed that we need the essentials of survival from the economy to lead a free life. Both statements provide specific conditions for freedom and in doing so assert a guide on how to be free. I think that if two combined their ideas to formulate one that would create a wonderful theory on freedom! Let me explain how this theory would work if i were to merge the two..


First, Marx's standpoint on freedom would be presented: In order to survive you need the essentials of life that the economy should be able to provide such as shelter, food, and clothes. Through Marx's perceptive view a fundamental base would be set for the next phase of freedom, the final phase of freedom provided by Mills. In order to finalize the freedom you need to live in a society with a liberal government without being pressured or forced to do things by them. Finalizing this theory you have to have the stability and security of a good economy to get you on your feet and a liberal government to let your freedom soar!


Now that's how it should be seen! Both brilliant ideas combined into one amazing theory of freedom. Both Marx and Mills make points that contribute to the factors of freedom but i can't see their individual ideas as the makings of freedom. United they make much more sense :)!

Week 9: Buddhism

According to Buddhism, the main source of our suffering is our preoccupation with our own desires. Suffering is said to be caused by selfish cravings and desires. The way to enlightenment, for Buddhism, therefore involves detaching from our narrow concern with ourselves, escaping the prison of our own desires and illusions.
Do you think it is possible to live according to this teaching in the contemporary United States? Is there a conflict between what Buddhism teaches, and how we are encouraged to think and act in our society? What are your thoughts on this?

I believe as living in the US my whole life i can certainly and surely say that this country would not be able to successfully undertake the concepts of Buddhism, America is the central of individualism. We serve to ourselves primarily, go to school so we can have a job, get a job so we can have money, have money so we can build upon our own needs and wants. All of these desires are self-centered, Although i do agree Buddhism does have a strong belief system and incredible moral teachings with certain enlightenment, I do not see the people of this society diverging from their individualistic values to Buddhist values.

In society we are treated as names and numbers, not beings. Buddhism embraces every soul and embarks on a journey for the mind. Americans only worry about the work that is done for them and the society, not the fact that a person can be mentally exhausted by working two jobs to pay enormous bills. Meditation and care for the individuals was never a foundational factor for this society we live in. Buddhism does come into conflict with our society in the sense that Buddhism tries to involve and enlighten everyone, exempting any negative energy and focusing on the mental wellness and moral correctness of the individuals who practice it, Our society does not spiritually inspire or enlighten any of us, the only motivation is money our well being is not a part of that goal.


It's harsh but it is the truth, in being together like Buddhism teaches a person can unfold and reveal their inner selves with the beauty of enlightenment. America does not concern or confront any of these spiritual teachings or try to bring the best out of every individual, they just motivate us with things that money can buy, without looking into the persons mind, a sad but true part of our society.


Buddhism is amazing, America should take some pointers to help destruct the developing individualism driven my money motives they have set :(!