it always is moral if truly it does standardize only to be civil disobedience.
To be, the individual within a social contract publicly first must
act privately to change that contract. That is, he or she must lack the
socially-instituted political authority to change that to which he or she
objects- be it within the language of law or of the persons or actions
or inactions of individuals which or who have that political authority.
For it only to be civil disobedience and, therefore, also moral,
he or she cannot impose his or her personal authority upon another. He
or she must limit himself or herself to enacting the standards of moral defense
as the legitimate means to his or her end.
we morally could oppose the immorally-instituted interest groups which
politically include the unethical individuals who would and universally
do rule hierarchically as men. We also could answer that with the otherwise-ignored
alternative which forms to be the hierarchically-moral rule of law, though
socially we'd not be within man's political laws individually or collectively
by doing so.
instead and accordingly respond to protect our primary rights as individuals
only in proportioned response because morally only then would we be on
a level playing field with our oppressors. That is, this applies because
we morally first must honor even our immoral opponents' preeminent rights
equally with our own even where and when our language-analogous
political laws of nominal authority secondarily are "up for grabs."
standard also applies to mean that our immoral adversaries personally would
have the self-justifying, seeming sanction of their nation-states. They
then likely would initiate unethical acts to which we personally might
respond in self-defense and/or in the custodial defense of others. This
could escalate to the point which standardizes "civil" war. In rational
fact, it would if the individuals on both sides don't back down
where and when the personal aggressor's "push" does result in the morally-disobedient
respondent's returning "shove." Of course, the latter morally may yield
short of that, but she or he doesn't have to.
the essence of moral civil disobedience includes but doesn't limit
to standardizing the concept of "passive resistance" which Thoreau, Gandhi,
and Martin Luther King, among others, expounded. While enacting that moral
option would prevent civil war, our added moral option physically to meet
force with like-kind force likely wouldn't if we'd not revert to the former
short of it. Regardless, the morally disobedient at best only would win the battle while losing the war if they'd first not dedicate morally to the source which
provides the formatively-moral alternative.
liberate even the most oppressed but is a temporary measure. It only changes
the individuals we'd identify from their labels of secondary human characteristic
politically within a morally-flawed contract which features the self-interested,
hierarchical rule of men from top down. Our history's replete with that
as we've needlessly caught ourselves up within a vicious circle of our
own making. Yet even the morally dedicated also must undergo the battle first, and that
one offers many opportunities for escalation.
beyond our self-defense or custodial-defense rights to protect one another's
preeminently-rightful persons, we also could react morally to maintain
our equal right sensibly to access our society's political places. That
others can and at some point likely would try to stop us- ultimately even
further to restrict us within those places we call "jails" would
escalate the conflict. Then we would be in a civil war if
those others next would force us to kill or be killed and/or safely incarcerate
them before they would us.
this writer, at least, prefers it not to come to that, and that also is
our morally-private option. He prefers to stop short, morally to begin
and end the attempt only by questioning our immoral rulers' claims to political
authority and rule and offering the alternative to you as it and "you"
would include them both. Even the president of a country or CEO of an international
corporation, say, could be among the "you," and even they could join the
ultimate cause before it is too late.
now, this writer lacks rational reason to believe that the "sedition" laws
of his country, the U.S.A., do apply to his tenuous right to "free speech."
Though, therefore, he isn't and chooses not to be disobedient as yet, the
possibility still exists for the ruling men instituted there to find him
so. There have been times in that nation-states past- during the
McCarthey inquisition under the H.U.A.C. congressional "hearings" most
egregiously recently, for instance, that people politically have been prosecuted
and persecuted for far less.
a new and reformed constitution somewhere must institute interest
groups within one truly-unified moral social contract .
This writer no longer can swear his allegiance to the U.S. Constitution
as the best possibility within an imperfect human condition instead. His
allegiance is to the truths and facts which could
frame its successor or rival elsewhere. Therefore, he stands ready morally
to disobey and resist as necessary, even while he hopes not to have to.
Please join him within a moral interest group, for that's also your
first step from which the second onto an escalator of even morally-justified
civil disobedience needn't follow unduly to risk our very lives.
likely will call you "seditious," "traitorous" and/or "unpatriotic"
if you take the second step first anyway. You'd also offer your own possible
rule as a man to replace that of others, each self-interestedly to invoke
a divisive interpretation of an allegedly-common "supreme law" seemingly
to justify her or his own self alone. If we'd take the formative steps
in their logical order together, perhaps we could turn our species
around without having to kill or die within and with our one truly-common-
if generally-ignored- moral cause. Please, let's only embark on a morally-disobedient
course if first we'd together have that truly-moral replacement at
the ready from the outset.