| | 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. | | | The distinction between the treatment of other humans beings as a means to an end, on one hand, and as valuable ends in and of themselves is relevant to this conversation. It is in some ways analogous Rohan's distinction between "violence as resolution" and "violence for resolution.". According to Brown's accounting of his acts and intentions, he sought to free individuals from the perpetual state of violence that is slavery. Naturally, he understood this objective in the political context we discussed in class. But it was not his inent to somehow precipitate large scale social change. Nor did he understand his violent acts as justice in and of themselves. Roeder, on the other hand, probably conceived of his actions as some combination of revenge and vengeance and galvanization. He was not acting on behalf of the future abortion "victims" of the doctors.
| |
>
> | Abiola begins:
Joseph, I'd like to respond to the questions you posted towards the end of your post, "When Eben coaxes us to find the John Brown inside of us, what does that mean in practical terms? To be willing to bend and even break the law for the sake of what we feel is "right"? To put lives, especially of others, in danger for the sake of our belief?" | | | | |
<
< | Joseph, I'd like to respond to the questions you posted towards the end of your post, "When Eben coaxes us to find the John Brown inside of us, what does that mean in practical terms? To be willing to bend and even break the law for the sake of what we feel is "right"? To put lives, especially of others, in danger for the sake of our belief? What gives us the right to decide that our belief is "right" to the exclusion of the belief of others, and to sacrifice the lives of others under this assumption?" | >
> | I think that there is a clear difference between abortion and slavery, in that one affects an unborn individual and the other affects a born individual. I am not commenting on whether abortion is right or wrong, or whether a fetus counts as a human being. Rather, I am commenting on slaves as "born" human life, the kind of life that you can see without requiring an ultrasound. The life that walks and can talk. The life that if you were to inflict pain on it, it would respond to the pain you chose to inflict in ways you can see. | | | | |
<
< | I think that there is a clear difference between abortion and slavery. In comparing the two, you assume that John Brown's actions were based on what he felt was "right", but I would argue that his action were based on more than just a simple feeling of what one thinks is right. Rather, the actions of John Brown were based on a fundamental value that society lacked back then (and now). This value is simply one of valuing human life. Not the life that can be defined in current debates on abortion, but rather the life that you can touch. The life that you can see with your eyes. The life that if you were to speak to it, it would speak back. The life that if you were to hurt it, it would respond to the pain you chose to inflict.
There are certain truths that we as a society should agree upon if mankind is to be able to move forward and make significant changes to prevent crimes against humanity that happen throughout the world. Unfortunately, I doubt we will ever come to agreement upon these truths (which Moglen mentioned numerous times). The truth that I believe that was ultimately at issue in the class discussion was that no innocent man should be kidnapped, kept against his will to work and live like an animal, and killed because of his race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality.
I cannot comment on abortion. It is an issue that deeply divides our nation and it is an issue that is promulgated by scientific and religious findings on what constitutes a human being. I can comment on slavery, I can comment on people that I know were human beings. As uneloquent as it sounds, slaves were born and forced to weather their circumstances, as opposed to fetuses which are unborn "beings". | >
> | In comparing abortion and slavery, you believe that both are based on actions that supporters feel are "right". I would argue that Brown's actions were based on more than just a simple feeling of what one thinks is right, but rather on a fundamental truth that history has taught us, man should agree upon but continues to disagree. I believe that as a society there is a fundamental truth that is essential to being able to make significant changes to prevent crimes against humanity that happen throughout the world. The truth that I believe is fundamental and is at issue in this topic, is that no innocent man or woman should be kidnapped, kept against his or her will to work and live like an animal, raped, and killed because of his or her race, ethnicity, gender, or sexuality. | | | When I read about the actions of John Brown, it wasn't with the opinion of whether or not I thought the abolitionist movement was the "right" feeling, rather I read the actions of John Brown as promoting my universal truth that innocent human beings should not to be kept in bondage, degraded, and stripped of every element that makes them human. | |
<
< | What struck a chord with me most was not your Law and Order comment, but the comments raised by my other classmates that questioned whether the timing was right for the anti-slave movement, and championed the political process as a proper way to end slavery. In my opinion these comments touched upon the problem with which too many view slavery- as something that was part of our history, was unfortunate, but was not a massive human rights violation on the part of slave owners. With what other systematic killing and forced labor of men do we apply this rational? | >
> | What struck a chord with me most was not your abortion comment, but the comments raised by my other classmates that questioned whether the timing was right for the anti-slavery movement, and championed the political process as a proper way to end slavery. In my opinion these comments touched upon the problem with which too many view slavery- as something that was an unfortunate part of our history, but was not a massive human rights violation on the part of slave owners. With what other systematic killing and forced labor of men, women, and children do we apply this rational? | | | | |
<
< | I do not view Moglen's comments in class as a cause to take up arms, rather, in my opinion the take away from the discussion was about becoming the type of lawyers that the world needs. When I hear about holocausts (both past and present), human trafficking, or any other atrocities against man, I don’t try to rationalize why it would be wrong to try and save human beings that are helpless in their situation. Has history not taught us a better lesson? Can we not all think of times when by waiting for a government to act, thousands, if not millions, were killed? Should we have waited for Hitler to respond to peaceful protests? Or perhaps the Tutsi should've waited for the political process to kick in, while hundreds of thousands were murdered?
At the close of class I couldn't help but think of the French singer Zazie's song J'étais là, in which she describes the world shaking from violence and turmoil. Returning from Somalia, Bangladesh and Rwanda, she remembers being in those countries and being able to count the dead, but when the time came for action she did nothing. She was there, and she did nothing. | >
> | I do not view Moglen's comments in class as a cause to take up arms, rather, in my opinion the take away from the discussion was about becoming the type of lawyers that the world needs. When I hear about holocausts (both past and present), human trafficking, or any other atrocities against man, I don't try to rationalize why it would be wrong to try and save human beings that are helpless in their situation. Has history not taught us a better lesson? Can we not all think of times when by waiting for a government to act, thousands, if not millions, were killed? Should we have waited for Hitler to respond to peaceful protests? Or perhaps the Tutsi should have waited for the political process to kick in, while hundreds of thousands were murdered? | | | We will all soon become attorneys, we will all soon be future surveyors of justice- and the most important question that we can asks ourselves is what we will do when the time comes for action. | | | 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 | |
>
> | Alexandra, I believe your comment was misdirected. My comment appears after the line. I'm not sure whose paragraph it is that starts "Alexandra, The distinction between the treatment of other humans beings...", but if in deed that was what you were responding to then I would appreciate if you redirected your response so that I am not credited for what I did not write.
Joseph, I would be regretful if I didn't admit that I too wanted you to be able to fully express your idea in class. I think one of the reasons why Moglen stopped you was because it would've been very easy to misinterpret your question when presented orally. I cannot comment on Alexandra's point, because I believe her comment was not directed at my post, but rather at the anonymous paragraph before my post. When I say that abortion is a clear issue, again, in my opinion I am talking about taking action for those that are born versus the unborn. I purposely avoided getting into the rightness or wrongness of the abortion debate. Whether or not one thinks that a fetus counts as a human doesn't take away from the fact that it simply has yet to be born (neither side can deny this), as opposed to a slave who is a walking and breathing individual, that one can immediately help.
Where I differ from some is in the fact that I don't understand how slavery is still being "hotly debated" between people with different world views. I believe that there are fundamental wrongs that people should be able to agree on, such as kidnapping, raping, and killing. The act of slavery encompassed all of these things. I recognize that there will always be dissent on issues regarding crimes against life, but my hope was that there could be a consensus on what was a crime against a group of people.
I appreciate the fact that you took the time to post and clarify your question. |
|