Revolution and Civil Disobedience - Essay Example

THE EXTENT TO WHICH T.H. GREEN HAVE MANAGED TO ESTABLISH THAT THE CITIZEN CAN HAVE A DUTY TO ENGAGE IN CIVIL DISOBEDIENCE AND EVEN REVOLUTION By Name Course Instructor Institution City/State Date The extent to which T.H. Green have managed to establish that the citizen can have a duty to engage in civil disobedience and even revolution Introduction The conflict between political authority as well as individual freedom according to Hsiao (2014, p.242) has become a persistent problem to mankind. As in earlier times, citizens and governments are still contending over the major and old problems of ‘political obligation’. Some philosophers such as Hegel emphasised categorically that it is the citizens’ duty to continuously obey the state, but other such as Thoreau as well as Green maintained that the citizens’ primary obligation owes to their conscience. According to Green, political institutions should be judged in terms of how the individual citizens develop. Morally speaking, for a man person to live satisfactory, he/she have to depend on a particular freedom of action so as to achieve his objective. This can only achieved if there exists a common recognition, by citizens wherein he/she lives; therefore, such freedom according to Green is for the citizens’ common good. However, it is only laws that express this form of recognition; therefore, when citizens give in to the institutions’ authority where the laws are created and implemented, they will be letting their life to be controlled by conditions. In consequence, this limits their ability to live lives that are actually their own. The essay seeks to examine the extent to which T.H. Green have managed to establish that the citizen can have a duty to engage in civil disobedience and even revolution. Discussion Green asserts that the function of law is to help citizens in realising their reason, specifically, their idea of self-perfection, whereby they can act as social organization members and be able to contribute to the better being of others. Green further states that there must exist a feeling that a coercive authority that control’s the citizens’ common action and holds them together for their own good. Certainly, the laws’ supremacy brings about limitations on people inclinations. Green lectures concerning the political obligation principles of are exciting since England was not facing any form of political disorder at the time of his writings. Still, Green dedicated himself to discuss the obligation-related problems, and choosing ‘political obligation’ instead of the term ‘civil disobedience’, illuminates his preference of the topic. Green held the view that citizens had failed to achieve their civic responsibilities resulting in justification of negligence in terms of social Darwinian. In ability to act with civic responsibility on issues of social reforms was unacceptable. Liberal political theory states that the role of state is advancing the freedom of the citizens, and as a result, some power limits of the state would follow. In contrast, philosophic Idealism maintained the view of a higher good through which citizens must live and surpasses their private goods. This higher good as stated by idealism is not just the private goods aggregate. According to Algazy (1986, p.2), the apparent conflict between idealism as well as liberalism is ostensible, considering that while according to the idealism the state has to be steered by a principle which transcends the good of the citizens, liberalism holds that the state policies criterion is the good for citizens. Still, idealism and liberalism conflict is anchored on the theory that freedom is for egocentric reasons instead of unselfish ones. This assumption is challenged by Green, and he maintains that the freedom of the citizens is intended for a good that surpasses the individual they were at once an Idealist and a liberal. Moral duty and legal obligation are associated closely with Green’s political theory give that legal obligation main goal as established by Green is generating conditions that are favourable for fulfilling the moral duty (Wempe, 2004, p.150). Still, the sphere of morality and that of the law are different from one another; while morality is associated with the disposition that results in conduct, the sphere of law is related to the external conduct. Green established a moral duty and a right to repel the government ordinances or using force in attempt to overthrow an unfair government in the event of civil war or when the government is oppressive and unjust. Although citizens should not behave in uncivilised way, Green asserts that such cases verify that the state has failed to fulfil the common good; therefore, civil disobedience or revolution is justified. Even the moral duty of resisting repressive governments is not unreserved, and in many cases the condition under which it is subjected by Green could render it ineffectual. For resistance to the government to happen, the grounds for such resistance have to be recognised widely; that is to say, the citizens must be able to appreciate the reason for civil disobedience as beneficial to them. Green's criterion does not allow citizens to rebel against an unjust/ oppressive government without a strong popular sentiment that favours civil disobedience or revolution. This limitation on duty or right to rebel against despotic government is placed by Green for two reasons: the first reason is that civil disobedience against unjust government cannot come about at an individual capacity for the reason that a person should behave only as a citizen, and not otherwise; therefore, people can only be rebellious as citizens and with the manifestation of a strong popular sentiment that justifies the rebellion. The second reason is that civil disobedience or revolution can happen on the ground that the citizens cannot regard it as their own since it can result in general collapse of the state and law as well as the substitution of the social fabric by disorder and the common good interest will start fading. In spite of his opposition against slavery, Green argued that the infringement of the law in the best interests of the salves can only be justifiable if the slave’s rights are recognized socially (even if the state fails to recognise these rights). Failure to this, the duty to adhere to the law takes precedence over the duty to protect the slaves since rebelling against the state will connote a general replacement of force for collective good. This will in consequence outweigh the evil of any oppression and slavery. Right as defined by Green exhibit his objection; a right according to him is the citizens’ power to exercise for the common good. A right is also conferred by an authority through which its maintenance is considered essential. Green (2008, p.81) posits that a right is a political singularity offered in the experience of the individuals in political realism as well as restricted by their common good shared consciousness. In isolation, Green’s notion of rights is based on the community obligation experience and not the freewill of false non-political entities. According to Bishirjian (1974, p.38), this criticism of the doctrine of contemporary natural rights was rooted in the Aristotelian conception of man as a citizen, an intelligent animal as well as political animal. Green’s rights recognition theory isolates economic inequalities as well as civil inequalities ain social practice, and states that the human consciousness inherent nature sets the boundary of the things people can attain while pursuing ideal social harmony. According to this argument, value diversity and social conflict is prevalent in the human society; as a result, state and social intervention is needed to get rid of inequalities in the society as well as to reallocate natural resources fairly and equally to the citizens. In addition, Green established that in particular conditions, the criteria generating political obligation create a civil disobedience duty (Hyneman, 2010, p.315). In addition, Green emphasises the significance of seeing the government as being for its society of societies’ members, which is the society wherein every member claim against each other is adjusted mutually. For this reason, Green supports social pluralism, which is defined by Boucher et al. (2005, p.101) as a prudent dominant liberal state with democratic citizenship in various arenas with strong philosophies of rights as well as civil disobedience. Green was very sceptical concerning the likelihood of designing justice theories by means of abstract theorising; rather, he emphasized the significance of negotiation. As established by Green, social recognition requirement can be utilised to legalise social practices that are completely in disagreement with the ideas of the liberal society. However, such a requirement can sanction an inflexible devotion to social practices and roles, which successfully suppress autonomy and individuality. No government can legally neutralize the citizens’ rights and expect to be treated as being able to conceive as well as achieve a good for itself and the citizens. Precisely, Green argues that if there are no legal means for repealing a law, then the sovereign legal authority is questionable and the government together with the law system is infected.by private interests, which are unfriendly to the citizens. Equally, if the authority through which the proceeds of laws are not in line with the liberal state ends then the citizens have a right to disobey the laws or initiate civil disobedience. Nesbitt (1997, p.265) asserts that Green has peculiarly failed to openly refer to the rights to free life in his writings of legal and moral obligations, but it can be assumed that the illegality of the law that was unable to treat citizens as being able to decide and act upon different notions of good is at present an unspoken demand to the right to free life. For Green, the citizens have a right to take part in civil disobedience, and in consequence, this proves that there are liberty-claims, which are legitimate regardless of being recognised by others. The government can constitute measures, which practically release the citizens from a moral obligation of obeying the legislation, policy or law. In this regard, the citizens’ obligation of observing law, for the reason that it is the law, is non-existent. Social recognition requirement seems to be a requirement that requires liberty-claim to be made consistently with the values of a liberal political order. This understanding cannot reduce the difficulty of establishing the legitimacy and illegitimacy of the liberty-claims; however, interpretation of this requirement as a condition that is needed can Green's justification of civil disobedience irrelevant. According to Green, lack of legal means for repealing a law generates a justification for civil disobedience or revolution. Carter (2000, p.195) asserts that the massive mass of influences continually limits, shapes, or prohibits the social forces’ actual direction by its sovereign. Therefore, relatively aside from any conviction in the right of civil disobedience or rebellion, from Green’s assertion that every person in any country has a right to the ultimate sovereignty and can take away either executive or legislative power from the holders in case of abuse, it can justly be argued that perceived sovereign can only be exercise in virtue of an acceptance from the citizens. Green and Nettleship (2011, p.402) maintains that it is fairly a common desire for particular ends particularly security and peace of life to which adherence to law or recognized application results in a conscious reference for people it influences. Green opines that apart from democracy, wherein the people’s will can entirely and clearly be expressed peacefully, most people do not have ways of establishing what entails and does not entail the act of the sovereign people. For this reason, it becomes easier for contractarians to theoretically argue that aristocracy or monarchy governments are unchangeable; therefore, revolutions as well as rebellion can by no means be justified. Some contractarians such as Locke went further to justify revolutions as well as civil disobedience, stating that rebellion or revolution against the de facto government can be considered legitimate if practical value of the citizens’ doctrines is undermined (Craig & Craig, 2013, p.688). In view of this，Green maintains that his teleological observation of the state deriving authority from the end it serves, and not from covenant or consent is to a greater extent preferable. He argues that if the government authority derived from the function that it serves in sustaining the freedom conditions that are considered to be moral life conditions, then the people’s acts in repealing the prior act should not be necessarily totalled in order to rationalise its dissolution. When the government stops serving this function, it has no right to claim obedience from the citizens. Chow (1998, p.110) argues that, Green's argument must not be seen as fatal to contractarianism, but as an authority normative theory since contractarians also maintain that violation of the covenant by the government signifies that it has lost its claim on its citizens. Liu (2015, p.149) maintains that government failure to fulfil its obligation as required by the covenant is what that is fundamental in justifying civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is justifiable according to Green when the sovereignty legitimacy as well as system of rights is in dispute because of the conduct of the government; when the entire system of rights and political society are tainted and regulated by private interests as well as in opposition to the citizens’ common interests; and when rebelling against disputable or objectionable law that violates the social order foundation as well as the power of the whole system of rights (Tyler, 2012). Although, a social integration practice view as well as a form of moral universalism has been endorsed by Green, the social common good is still contested. Contributing to the common good, on one hand, connotes honouring responsibilities bestowed on oneself; while on the other hand, it connotes taking part in an ongoing revolution or rebellion concerning the nature of the common good. A number of philosophers such as Ronald Dworkin echo Green assertions by maintaining that every person has a right to civil disobedience since it is their democratic right. According to Dworkin, when a person’s right is wrongly infringed by the law, then the person as a citizen has a right to rebellion or civil disobedience (King, 1998, p.126). Conclusion In conclusion, the essay has examined the extent to which T.H. Green has managed to establish that the citizen can have a duty to engage in civil disobedience and even revolution. As mentioned in the essay, green emphasises that civil disobedience must not be carried out lightly; he as well convincingly and forcefully argues that all the citizens have the right to evaluate whether the ideal purposes there are being fulfilled by the government. Although there are some line of conservatism in Green's view of civil disobedience and resistance to despotic government, some of his arguments are ambivalent. Even though his arguments about civil disobedience are not completely conservative, the radical aspect must not be disregarded. Green is against slavery and he also supports a right to resist repressive government, but so long as the resistance moral rectitude is recognized socially by most citizens. Still, the right of revolution is non-existent in highly oppressive governments and those establish of aristocracy or monarchy. References Algazy, T.M., 1986. The Philosophical Foundation of Thomas Hill Green’s Social and Political Theory. Thesis. Montréal: McGill University. Bishirjian, R.J., 1974. Thomas Hill Green's Political Philosophy. Political Science Reviewer, vol. 4, pp.29-53. Boucher, D. et al., 2005. British Idealism and the Political Philosophy of T. H. Green, Bernard Bosanquet, R. G. Collingwood and Michael Oakeshott. The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, vol. 7, pp.97–125. Carter, J.C., 2000. Law: Its Origin, Growth and Function. Frederick, Maryland: Beard Books. Chow, C.-t., 1998. The common good and the state: explorations of Thomas Hill Green's political philosophy. Thesis. Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong: University of Hong Kong. Craig, P.E. & Craig, E., 2013. Concise Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. New York: Routledge. Green, T.H., 2008. Lectures on the Principles of Political Obligation. Cambridge : Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Green, T.H. & Nettleship, R.L., 2011. Works of Thomas Hill Green. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hsiao, K.C., 2014. Political Pluralism: A Study in Contemporary Political Theory. New York: Routledge. Hyneman, C.S., 2010. the criteria generating political obligation create a civil disobedience duty. Piscataway, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers. King, R.H., 1998. Dworkin, when a person’s right us wrongly infringed by the law, then the person as a citizen has a right to rebellion or civil disobedience. Athens, GA : University of Georgia Press. Liu, J.-H., 2015. The Practical Philosophy Of T. H. GREEN: An Idealistic Conception of Liberal Politics. Thesis. Cardiff: Cardiff University. Nesbitt, D.R., 1997. A Liberal Theory of Virtue and the Good: the moral and political thought of T.H. Green. Edmonton, Alberta: University of Alberta. Tyler, C., 2012. Civil Society, Capitalism and the State: Part 2 of the Liberal Socialism of Thomas Hill Green. London: Andrews UK Limited. Wempe, B., 2004. Moral duty and legal obligation are associated closely with Green’s political theory. Devon: Imprint Academic. Read More