Civil disobedience is morally justified in a democracy.
Debate Rounds (3)
1. Pro opening argument.
2. Con opening argument and pro defense.
3. Con defense and closing arguments. Pro closing arguments.
Good luck to whoever accepts.
Hi Mcbunny. This is the first debate I've done in a while where I am not actively extracting the Michael out of my opposition so I'm hoping for a good one.
I will be arguing that it can be morally justified to perform acts of civil disobedience in a democracy - not that it is always justified. In addition so that I will be fulfilling my burden of proof, I will argue that any act of civil disobedience which cannot be morally justified is no immoral because it is acting against the state, but rather the immorality lies in the action itself independently of the actors prepertating and receiving the action.
My burden of proof is that I have to show that these actions against the state are not immoral because they are perpertrated against the state; for an action to be morally justified it does not require it to be good, or moral, merely not immoral - for one does not need to justify a neutral action. Should I merely counter all my opponents arguments, I will have won, for it is reasonable to assume that any action which cannot be shown to be immoral, can be morally justified.
Justify: To provide an acceptable explanation for
Moral: Of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behaviour
Civil disobedience: A form of social protest, involving the active but non-violent refusal to obey certain laws, demands, or commands of an established authority, because they are considered to be morally wrong or detrimental.
That should be all.
1. Democracies are not immune from tyranny.
Infact some describe democracies as the tyranny of the majority. If an immoral law is enforced by a majority - say you must murder someone once a week - civil disobedience is the only moral response. If more people than you want an immoral law enforced, no amount of legal voting will change that.
2. Democratic mandate is not a sufficient mandate on a moral basis.
Say you are on an island - 9 Pedos and you. They all get horny. Someone, lets call him Gary Glitter, proposes that someone ought to get raped. There is general consensus that a vote ought to determine who this is. Everyone puts a name in a hat, and nine to one they vote for you. They have a democratic mandate for raping. But this does not make the action moral - for you to attempt to avoid any sexual encounters with Gary Glitter and his buddies would be analagous to civil disobedience. Most would infact argue that civil disobedience (non-violent action) would not be far enough in this case.
3. There is nothing inherently immoral with non-compliance
This argument speaks for itself. I suggest that we both agree on an axiomatic basis that we have self ownership - please say if you wish to contest this point. If someone tries to force you to do something against your will which you have not agreed to do, then refusing is not immoral.
I await my opponents response.
mcbunny234 forfeited this round.
Why does it always rain on me?
mcbunny234 forfeited this round.
Somewhere beyond the sea. Somewhere waiting for me.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by thett3 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|
Reasons for voting decision: kittens!
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.