CD: Testing the Common Conception of Justice

In Singer's reading, one of his base ideas conveys the assertion that a society with a common conception of justice does not require civil disobedience, because if that society did indeed have that common conception, nothing would need to be brought to it's attention.  My question is, can that common conception change?

Firstly, a common conception is by definition a common thought process or belief held by a large majority of the people of a certain society; hence, a common conception.  Furthermore, if the people in such a society are the ones that create such a common conception, then couldn't that common conception change with the addition or subtraction of persons?  Or, for instance, a scientific paradigm shift?

CD: What's Next?

In class today we discussed Rawls' statements on civil disobedience, being more than stopping at the court decision of a test trial.  I am now not so sure as to whether or not he was appealing to a characteristic of a good civilly disobedient person, or being more literal..with that being said, if a person is never finished promoting his or her, or their, cause, what is next?  This question seems easier to answer for some cases more than others.

What struck me as this being such a difficult question to answer was somewhat theoretical, yet quite feasible.  What would Keeler and Corner have done if their was no dispute over the land?  After Randy went to jail, and their house was auctioned off (successfully), they were still able to protest, given that there was no decision over the property, and/or the land belonged to the general public.  Either way, their occupation was completely legal.  If the new family had owned the property as well, what would Betsy and Randy have done?  I think this a very tough case, especially because the decision to avoid federal taxes will never leave one alone.  So long as they continue to resist, they will forever be evicted from whatever place they legally occupy, unless they live with friends or family.  It seems like an incredible and life consuming commitment, based in principle, much more so than the practicality or effectiveness of their decision to withhold federal taxes.

CD: Circularity in Protesting Injustice

After watching part of the film, An Act of Conscience, I was reminded of Thoreau's take on direct and indirect civil disobedience, and the persons obligated to take these actions.  Obviously, a refusal to pay income tax, to prevent that money from being used in war is an example of direct civil disobedience that Thoreau himself used.

I do admire Thoreau's commitment to direct civil disobedience, but I think his view that it is the only proper way to protest is wrong, for a simple reason.  In many cases, the person(s) being persecuted or suffering injustice are perfectly capable of taking effective actions to better their cause and seek change.  However, what of the more extreme cases of injustice?  Could slaves have protested slavery?  Could members of an ethnic group protest to their genocidal counterparts?  I think not. It seems to me that Thoreau's idea of leaving civil disobedience to the ones suffering the persecution stops short of the most deadly and heinous forms of social injustice.