Wednesday, May 19, 2010
Abby Pardick (THURS)
I will be looking at the ethics of the non-profit, Energy Action Coalition. The main organizing group of a youth conference, Powershift, the organization stresses the ideas of energy dependence and political action from youth ages 16-22. As an attendee of the 2009 conference, and participant in a large act of civil disobedience, I would like to explore how the organization has used ethical arguments in support of their ideas about progress and democracy. I would also like to see how the social contract theory, and Rachels’ view on civil disobedience has been illustrated, or not illustrated within the views of the organization. There is an underlying theme made in the reading that civil disobedience cannot be justified within a democratic system, and that within a democracy we have the means to create change, therefore making civil disobedience unnecessary. However, the organization feels that civil disobedience and lobbying are both acceptable ways to create change within a society. Not only do they believe this, but they are sharing these ideas and presenting them to the youth of America that they are the only ways create change for the better.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
How would a libertarian view the idea of civil disobedience? Is it limiting a person's freedom?
ReplyDeleteAre ethical arguments a main focus of the organization? Why or why not?
ReplyDeleteDo the main goals of the organization follow any particular ethical framework?
I think it is necessary to look at who they choose to attend this conference. If they are all young adults focused on attaining a position within the government, it may seem that civil disobedience and lobbying are the appropriate measures to take when passing a law. What is their argument for taking these actions? Do they think that their actions are ethical? Does this organization think that ethics plays a large role when the government passes laws?
ReplyDeleteDoesn't Rachels discuss how civil disobedience is necessary and justifiable as a last resort when the disenfranchised "are denied a fair share of the benefits of social living," and that they are then released from the social contract?
ReplyDeleteIt could be interesting to explore what definition of rights the organization and the government are using? It seems that the organization believes that their rights are being oppressed so they feel like they have to act out, but does this go against the broader definition? Are their social agreements that have set the limitations and this organization has no claim to act out?
ReplyDeleteGoing off of Dan's comment...
ReplyDeleteDoes this organization view rights as something that is inherent? What would Bentham think of this argument?
Is it possible that the implications of the social contract theory depends on type of agreement is agreed upon? For instance, this group you are speaking of is "breaking" the social contract theory by rallying behind their ideas for energy independence. Is our democracy, in fact, a democracy in the sense that if the majority of people want change, then it will happen?
ReplyDeleteHow successful has the Energy Action Coalition been? How do other non-profit or socially inclined groups feel about them? How does the government feel about them?
ReplyDeleteHas the Energy Action Coalition had to face any legal ramification for acts of civil disobedience? Or any social and political consequences?
ReplyDeleteIn reference to the social contract and civil disobedience, how has the contract between the government and the general interest failed? What is specifically being renegotiated?
ReplyDeleteHow can you defeat the classical thought of the social contract if you choose to accept the burden of the laws(by living in the same area)even when they go against your self-interest?
Civil disobedience is a powerful tool. I was curious to see if you can use a cost benefit analysis in this situation in order to see if the benefits outweigh the costs. And if this is true does this further justify your reason for using civil disobedience?
ReplyDeleteI dont know if there was supposed to be a specific emphasis on the "only" part of the last sentence, but I keep coming back to it. Is civil disobedience and lobbying the only ways for change, shouldn't youths be free to choose what routes they want for change and not boxed into just the 2 ways, just like democracy says there can't be civil disobedience?
ReplyDelete