CD: Civil Disobedience in a Civil Society

I was really intrigued about our conversations in class on Thursday concerning the "civil society."

I would stipulate that civil society is a product of cultural laws of the people, and laws of the government.  I would also stipulate that governmental law is all inclusive of pragmatic laws of the time period and area, as well as the fundamental laws that may exist in numerous, if not all just societies.

While I do not think we came to a definite conclusion, I personally think that civil disobedience cannot exist without a genuine civil society.  For example, the civil societies of many fascist regimes during WWII I would argue are fabricated, and forced.  They are not a melding of cultural and governmental law; they exist in a fake reality, where all laws are either enforced or not by an all powerful figurehead, or heads.  One might argue that the complete revolution sparked by Gandhi, which forced the English to abdicate their hold over India, was done in an improper civil society; I would disagree.  Just because the regime was overthrown, as opposed to reformed, does not mean that the past regime did not cultivate a genuine civil society within the country.  I would argue that the division and extension of power that comes with a colonial system almost insures at least some influence from the cultural laws and customs of the local people.

In conclusion, I think that civil disobedience is not possible without a civil society.  In the case of Jewish empathy during the holocaust, and others like it, I would say that this is simply, "disobedience."

CD: Socrates and Thoreau, Leaving Home?

Socrates and Thoreau both discussed various concepts of obeying/disobeying the law, the concept of laws and following them, and other paradigms of civil disobedience.

In The Crito, Socrates defends his decision to accept the punishment of the Athenian government as he is questioned by his longtime friend, Crito.  Socrates even goes as far as to say that he likes Athens enough that he has never considered moving to neighboring city-states with governments he prefers.

Thoreau never mentions the possibility of leaving the States for a territory with a better governing. With that being said, Thoreau was not really in the same position as Socrates, but I think it's worth considering the possibility that he may have left for a government that was more ideal.  While Thoreau seemed to be intent on clarifying the fact that he was strictly a reformer of the law (and not an anarchist, just as Socrates) I don't think he exemplifies the same love for his county (or city) as Socrates does.  Would he have left the States if there had been a nearby government with a structure he preferred?  I think it's worth considering.

CD: Introduction

Hey guys!

Just thought I'd introduce myself.  My name is Dominick Cooper, and I'm a sophomore here at MCLA.  I'm a Political Science and Philosophy double major, from Lewisburg, PA.

Growing up in Virginia, going to high school in central Pennsylvania, and being a Christian Catholic, I've been raised in a largely conservative atmosphere.  Upon attending MCLA, and attending philosophy classes here especially, I've really been exposed to different schools of thought.  I've found my experience at MCLA to be incredibly enriching so far, and I've found that above all things, being a well rounded individual (as far as schools of thought go) is possibly one of the most important foundations a scholar can have.  I've enjoyed the first week of class, and I look forward to the rest of the semester!!

Last Blog

I've learned a lot from this course, blogging among them.  I'm really glad I took this course, especially because of its usefulness for entrance exams to Law School.  I think logic also teaches you to think in a different way, and to analyze problems from a different angle.  I definitely think one could teach multiple levels of logic;  I would say it would take more than just a few semester classes to start running short on content.  Overall, this course was my most challenging class, and I'm glad I'm taking it... it's not over yet!  Definitely glad we are trying to put together a final review session.

"Just four months after a Florida jury acquitted Casey Anthony of murdering her daughter, one of the prosecutors has released a ghostwritten book called “Imperfect Justice.’’ This is the way the justice system works in the most spectacular cases: there is the legal phase, and there is the cash-in phase, and sometimes the two are concurrent. But it’s too easy to confuse stunning TV “gotcha’’ moments with a clear path to conviction. No one should count on the courts for emotional satisfaction."
-Joanna Weiss 20 Nov. 2011


I think Weiss' point about denouncing the court system through emotional satisfaction commits the red herring fallacy.  While she does make a valid point discussing the concurrency of the legal and cash-in phase, she then concludes that "no one should count on the courts for emotional satisfaction."  Besides the fact that the premise right before begins to deviate from the original argument, I think that a basic knowledge of our justice system would state that a main purpose of due process in court is to avoid such emotional, and possibly rash, unjust decisions.  

Re “Questions About the Safety of Fracking” (letters, Nov. 9):

Representative Maurice D. Hinchey, Democrat of New York, does not mention the economic benefits of natural gas development in regions long plagued by widespread unemployment. As a result of investments in safe shale gas technology by natural gas companies, people are working and communities are again thriving. Repeated tests have shown that hydraulic fracturing in thousands of wells protects water supplies, and state and federal tests have found no groundwater contamination.

Mr. Hinchey would have us believe that because the federal government doesn’t regulate it, there is lax regulation of hydraulic fracturing — or none. Hydraulic fracturing operations are indeed rigorously regulated by states, which are best equipped to regulate because hydrologic and geologic conditions vary greatly from state to state, making a nationwide system unworkable.

Shale producers have a commitment to the environment and the communities in which they operate. They’ve adopted numerous industrywide standards to ensure safe and clean operations, as well as programs such as FracFocus.org, a Web site about fracking that lists the components of hydraulic fracturing fluids on a well-by-well basis.

JACK N. GERARD
President and Chief Executive
American Petroleum Institute
Washington, Nov. 9, 2011

This letter to the editor, surprisingly by the President and Chief executive of the American Petroleum Institute, answers the questions raised by a November 9th article, "Questions About the Safety of Fracking," by Maurice Hinchey.  In order to really see the fallacies here, you should click on the link of the article by Hinchey and read that as well.  In summary, I think, as well written as Gerard's response is, it commits the straw person fallacy by not really answering the right question.  In response to the main concern of Hinchey, which is API's resistance to environmentally friendly legislation, Gerard mainly focuses on the economic benefits of fracking, and the jobs it is creating.  Gerald does mention safety in the last paragraph, specifically the website that lists the components of fluids in the fracking, well by well, but simply listing what chemicals are entering the earth aren't exactly taking safety precautions.  Having lived in a huge marcellus shale region in Pennsylvania, I can attest to the environmental dangers of fracking.  For example, while there may be regulations, large, billion dollar companies will simply pay the fine for safety infractions, rather than change their equipment/buy better, safer, and more expensive equipment.  As far as drinking water safety goes, which Hinchey mentions, some water in central PA is undrinkable because of chemicals leaking into the water; some water is even flammable.  These environmental issues are vaguely answered at best by Gerald.  The article focuses on the positive economic benefits, and does not answer the concerns raised by Hinchey.

"After reading about low expectations for a high school diploma and limiting homework, I am concerned that we are becoming a soft, wimpy, mediocre society."


This assertion is from a letter to the editor, entitled, "The Quality of Homework," (NYTimes, 31 Oct. 2011).  While the letter provided some fairly strong evidence that the high school education of our country is lacking, I think concluding that this makes our society, "soft, wimpy," and, "mediocre," is too emotive, among all else, and commits the fallacy of false cause.  The connection between loosening educational standards has no direct and certain relation to a soft, wimpy, and mediocre society.  One can even question the ambiguity of what he means by soft, and wimpy.  I think that perhaps using the term mediocre might be justified, especially if it were relative to the academic performance and production per worker in other competitive countries.  However, the conclusion in all is weakly correlated with the premise and, in my opinion, fallacious.