Global Diplomacy, Right to Exist : Stuck between a bomb and a ...bomb.

I know we delved into this subject in class, but I feel unsatisfied by the inevitable conclusion that we cannot solve the ongoing issue in the Middle East.  I think that I have a certain amount of bias though I concede that Israel behaved pretty poorly recently and in the past all the way back to her conception.  However, the question remains, in a situation that leaves unfortunate consequences no matter the decision how is one supposed to act? How is a country, always bogged down with contemplatively evaluating how much longer they will exist, act fairly? How does the choice not persist negatively with neighbors possessing voracious animosity?

Professor Silliman gave explanation that foreign diplomatic support can be a very positive thing and in cases, specifically where independence is concerned, countries lacking global support of some nature, struggle or fail.  Given this premise, which I am inclined to agree with, what's the right choice when global diplomacy pulls you in turn different directions?

My issue with pacifism

Throughout the entirety of this class, I  have had a problem with the absolutism with which violent civil disobedience had been cast out of the conversation of legitimacy, in regards to appropriate acts of CD.  Though I am still experiencing immense difficulty in presenting a clear argument for violent CD, I think I have uncovered a piece of what had been troubling me; it deals more with the errors of pacifism rather than the successes of violence.

Pacifism, especially in Gandhi's usage, has shown tremendous success in diffusing a significantly stronger party's anger while simultaneously removing their preexisting power, and in turn it yields truly remarkable results for the weaker party.  However, Gandhi's pacifism is one of extremist tendencies that, for me, went down a border line masochistic road.  To advise people not to fight is one thing, to admonish them for dying with revenge on their minds is another, and to remove blame from upon the aggressor is again another.  This extremist version of  pacifism not only squelches natural humanistic emotion (which isn't necessarily a bad thing) it goes further by not placing blame upon the offending party.  I understand physical pacifism in this instance and even the emotional pacifism, i.e. not grouping all members of a strong party together as "bad people" , but to remove blame is to remove reason for the advisee to act with pacifistic ideals in his/her heart, essentially asking people to willingly accept murder for no apparent reason.  Extreme pacifism is too aggressive for my liking.

Legitimacy of religious civil disobedience

In my paper I intend to examine, evaluate, and either defend or refute the legitimacy of acts of civil disobedience in the name of religion, by utilizing documents like the Manhattan Declaration, and reviewing religious acts of civil disobedience in contemporary politic.  The purpose of my paper is to explore the parameters of civil disobedience and determine what factors require a change in terms.

Is punishment unjust?

I really enjoyed today's class! Though somewhat confusingly tangential, the class as a whole really seemed to dig into this issue and it got the ball rolling in my head.

I think the question needs to be asked: Is punishment unjust? More to the point, is our current penal system morally justifiable; is it a legitimate system?

What justifies the infliction of punishment on people? Today in class, the general consensus seemed to be that to define a human based on a singular action would be a mistake, for an isolated action cannot be reasonably considered a/the summation of the individual.  However, punishment occurs in reaction to singular actions nonetheless.  Punishing people certainly needs some semblance of justification for it is something almost always harmful or unpleasant for the recipient.  Imprisonment, for example, causes physical discomfort, psychological suffering, and general unhappiness along with a variety of other disadvantages (i.e. impairment of employment opportunities and social life).  Deliberately inflicting suffering on people is at least prima facie immoral, and needs some special justification. It is true that in some cases the recipient does not find the punishment painful, or even welcomes it – for example, some offenders might find prison a refuge against the intolerable pressures of the outside world. And sometimes when we punish we are not trying to cause suffering: for example, when the punishment is mainly aimed at reforming the offender, or at ensuring that victims are benefited by reparation. But even in these cases, punishment is still something imposed: it is an intrusion on the liberty of the person punished, which also needs to be justified.

Is religion a justification for civil disobedience?

I was reading an article about The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' effort to civilly defy on a massive scale, the Obama administration's forceful hand in requiring religious institutions to pay for contraceptive methods and abortion clinics, ( http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/7/state-sanctioned-anti-christianity/ ) and I started wondering about the importance of motivation in regards to acts of civil disobedience.  Is this still civil disobedience in the same respect that protesting a park being torn down for a parking lot?  In the sense that it is a community concern in both situations, I suppose the issues are the same, but in the case of religion, especially considering our society's aim for separation of church and state, I am always nervous to compare it on the same scale.

The Implications of Conscience

After a bit of perusing on the internet, it seems that a fair and basic definition of the word 'conscience' is a judgment by which a person distinguishes right from wrong.  Unfortunately this definition leaves me wondering what the parameters of having a conscience are. 

Some questions:

• Does eveyone have a conscience?
• Does having a conscience imply that one does the right thing?
• If in fact one has a conscience, can he or she consciously act against it, if so how/why?
• Is a conscience a universally present characteristic or can you be conscientious on one matter, but without a conscience on another?

In the reading by Thoreau, he writes : "The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think is right."  This implies that his having a conscience necessarily leads to his adherence to it.  Is this really the case he is trying to make?

Right or Responsibility

Do the citizens of a just society have the right or the duty to be civilly disobedient?

It seems to me that a prerequisite of having a "just" society would be that the citizens have the right to be civilly disobedient, however is it an obligation of the citizens to disobey the laws once deemed just, in order to further develop the society? 

Perhaps it's both.