Joseph DiCarlo

Civil Disobedience

Civil disobedience constitutes simply ignoring the laws that one doesnt agree with for
what happen to popularly be moral reasons. To sufficiently delve into this concept, it is
important that one examine the two schools of thought on this subject: formalism and
contextualism. Involved in formalism is the theory that laws are laws- that is how one was taught
to be and that is how it shall remain. Civil disobedience does not differ from breaking the law,
for at the end of the day the offender is doing what they want, acting according to
inconsequential personal beliefs. Civil disobedience is and should be a punishable crime, for one
is still breaking the law, plain and simple. Laws were created to ease the decision making and
judgment process: there is no leeway. Rooted in the contextualist school of thought is the belief
that all situations are unique, and therefore call for different practices, unique to the unique
situations. The morality of a law depends on the situation, and it is by that we should decide what
laws govern and dictate. Just because varying societies have varying practices does not make
them necessarily right, or for that matter, relevant.
For perspective, it is often useful to utilize a historical example that exemplifies the
intended concepts. Henry David Thoreau, a man of principle and a man of many words, wrote an
essay, entitled: On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. The story goes that while living in a house
off Walden Pond, he returned to town to run an errand. Upon reaching it, he was met by an
official and was asked to pay the poll tax which he had been avoiding for years. Full well
knowing that the poll tax would support the Mexican-American War, he refused, and was
subsequently sent to jail. After spending a night in a cell, it was revealed to him that someone
had paid his taxes and he was free to go. Inspired and incensed, he wrote of the night he spent in
jail, and how he got out, strangely enough not of his own accord, for he claimed that he himself
did not pay his taxes and therefore should stay in jail.
Comparatively, this situation can be viewed from two perspectives: the formalist, which
would argue that he committed a crime pure and simple, and the contextualist, which would
argue that supporting the war was immoral, and Thoreau should not have been expected to pay
the poll tax. The morality of the situation is up for grabs, depending on where ones values lie.
The contextualist would say that supporting war is highly immoral, and it is by that right the tax
is irrelevant- but at the same time a formalist would argue that laws are laws; it is not ones
responsibility to take it upon themselves to question the morality and take it as a subtle hint on
what avenue to take.
Inherent in the theories of ethics as it applies to laws is the conflict of authority. For
example, in the bible its states, Thou shall not kill. The authority in this situation is clearly
God, and the main idea is that one should not kill. However, this conflicts with the US
Government, in that it is perfectly acceptable to kill in the name of war defending your country.
Therein lies the conflict of authority; does one make a decision based on their personal morals,
or baselessly chose an authority of the two. In addition to God-Man, there are conflicts of
authority within the Government itself, Federal-State. In Colorado, it is legal to smoke
marijuana, and a state trooper cannot arrest someone for smoking, provided it is within reason
and within legal guidelines. However, it is not federally legal to smoke marijuana in the US, so if
a federal agent decided to arrest this man, he would certainly be within the law to do so. Wherein
lies the true authority? That becomes a matter of personal choice, for it depends on ones own
personal justification and it becomes less about the weighing of philosophical ideologies.