| | It is very easy, with the benefit of hindsight, to admire a man like John Brown who was willing to put his life in real danger to free slaves, even when this involved killing slaveholders from time to time. However, I feel like John Brown presents a "simpler" example because as a society we all agree, especially now, that slavery is wrong. The reason I brought up Law and Order (episode name = "Dignity") is because I am unsure about how to apply John Brown's principles in the present - when a moral issue is not as settled as slavery is now. How should we act when we feel, as individuals, that a moral wrong is being perpetrated, but the government and perhaps even the majority of society do not agree with us? How far can, or should, we take our "civil disobedience"?
The internet quickly revealed that the Law and Order episode I mentioned is based on Scott Roeder's murder of Dr. Tiller. Roeder explained his actions at trial as an attempt to save unborn children (my source is Wikipedia, hope that's academic enough). John Brown was driven, at least in part, by his pity of the "poor in bondage that have none to help them" (p. 4 of the interview). Roeder was driven by his belief that unborn children deserved help as well. | | | In Texas, teenage girls are required to obtain written permission from their parents before having an abortion. In the unfortunate situation where their home lives are contributing factors or their parents are unsupportive of their condition, underage girls are forced to go before a judge to petition for permission to choose their future course of life. Obviously the elected judges sitting in conservative districts cannot be associated with such immoral behavior and refer the girls to courts far away, often hundreds of miles away, to the nearest “liberal” court. I wonder how a 14-year-old girl, ostracized by her parents and unable to drive a car, finally receives the requisite permission to have a “legal” abortion? I for one would not want to argue with her that the pain she feels is not real enough to warrant consideration.
-- AlexandraRex - 1 Mar 2012 | |
>
> | I think, based on some of the replies and Eben's comments early in class today, some clarification is needed on my part. First of all, as to abortion, specifically Abiola's points about it - I used abortion simply as an example where someone with a specific set of world-views could feel that a John Brown-like response is necessary and how difficult it is to figure out what to do with that feeling in light of the conflicted view of society on the relevant issue. If you decide that abortion is not a good example, there are many more similar issues that could replace it and I'm sure you can fill in the blank yourself (capital punishment comes to mind as a possible alternative). However, as Alexandra points out, perhaps the difference between abortion and slavery is clear to you, but that's my whole point - it is clear to you but I bet it isn't as clear to many other people in the world. I would bet that for many of those people, the wrongness of abortion represents a "fundamental value" as much as slavery does to you and did to John Brown. I feel like evaluating John Brown-like responses becomes a lot more difficult when the particular value at stake is still hotly debated between significant groups people with different world-views. I'd like to reemphasize that abortion is simply an example that was meant to help clarify the issue I was struggling with - not, as Eben seemed to take it, some kind of expression of personal views or accusation regarding Eben's personal stances. Perhaps next time I will be able to actually finish asking my question instead of being cut off while simply providing an introductory example but I realize that this is doubtful.
However, the abortion issue is the less important of the two issues with my question that I've encountered so far. This is where Abiola's response and today's class were extremely helpful to me in understanding the contours of my own question. I believe my question relates to the second step of a 2-step process. Abiola's last 4 paragraphs, a large part of today's class, and the main takeaway from Tuesday's class focused on the first step, which is where I think the main misunderstanding comes up. I think Abiola and Eben are both encouraging us to take the first step to being confronted with an injustice - the step of not blinding ourselves to what is in front of us or rationalizing it away. The main point is that if, as lawyers, when confronted with injustice - even government-sanctioned and widely practiced injustice - all we do is turn away and say "it's not actually happening" or "it's not that bad" or "it's not my problem" or "yeah, it's messed up, but everyone else is doing so what am I supposed to do", then we're not worth shit. I have absolutely no problem with that idea. While I unfortunately cannot say at this point that this instinct is ingrained in my soul the way it was in John Brown's, I will never deny that acting against injustice, even when your own country is the one carrying out the injustice, is nothing short of courage and honesty in every sense of the word. My question was never directed at that first step, but rather on the second step - namely, once you determine that an injustice exists that requires action, the appropriate extent of that action, the form it should take, especially in relation to the law and to other people's legitimate interests (such as Dr. Tiller's right to his own life), can be a very difficult question when particularly sensitive values are at stake, such as in my example of abortion. I think a reasonable argument could be made that Roeder succesfully completed the first step but failed miserably when deciding on the second step.
I think, if I was able to fully explain my question to Eben, one likely response could be that right now Eben is trying to teach us how to crawl before teaching us how to walk. Few enough even manage to take the first step for him to even worry about the second step at this point. The bottom line is that I would understand if the details of the second step were insignificant enough right now in light of Eben's goals and the scope of the class for the question to be too far afield to even be entertained at this point. I do hope at least that my question is clearer now than before and that no one thinks anymore that I am accusing Eben of being a Christian anti-abortion terrorist or whatever.
-- JosephItkis - 2 Mar 2012 |
|