It was a debate produced by the Dutch Television, touching, inter alia, on the question of civil disobedience. The debate was between Noam Chomsky, a linguist, an activist, a social and political commentator and a philosopher from MIT, and Michel Foucault, a historian, an activist, a cultural critic and a philosopher from the College of France, two of the world's top academic institutions, one in North America and the other in West Europe.
I can do no better than let them speak for themselves as they are each more than capable of doing so. A real gem!
Although they disagree on many things, they are agreed on one thing: the right of a citizen to rebel against what they honestly believe are unjust laws or administrative acts of the government of the country in which by historical accident or by choice, they happen to find themselves. Both of them distinguish between two concepts, legality and legitimacy and/or justice. Legality merely relates to whether according to the "existing laws", certain acts fall within or outside the permitted limits. Legitimacy and justice are more basic, it goes to the question of whether the existing laws are just or unjust and for that reason, whether such laws are "legitimate/illegimitate" in the context of the aims and purposes of why the people of a country are prepared to give up/surrender part of their rights to the state or government.
From the points of view of these two great thinkers, "justice" is a fundamental, basic and global concept which involves the principles of "equality" and "fairness" , whether economic, social, class, gender or political, is the ultimate justification of any country having a legal system at all. In that sense, the relevant laws are the means of implementing the aim of achieving justice or at least minimizing certain unavoidable injustices in specific areas of civic life. Laws are or should merely be "means", never "ends" in themselves.
The laws must themselves be "legitimate". Whether they are so will be determined in the final analysis, by the people themselves, not by the government, in accordance with the principles of justice, including the principle of equality before the law (eg. equality of the right to elect and be elected in the legislative and executive branches of the government). No unreasonable restriction upon such rights should be imposed.
We must never forget that without the goal of "justice", laws in themselves will have lost their raison d'être, ( the reason for their existence). Hence we should never mistake the "means" for the "end," The "end" of having laws, criminal law included, is to achieve justice for all in any specific community. When the laws no longer serve the ends of such justice, then it will be the right and even the duty of all rational human beings, concerned for the common good of their society and both in the interest of themselves and in the interest of other weaker or less articulate members of their community to speak up against those who are in authority and who are supposed to serve the common interest of their community but who are perceived, upon reasonable grounds, not to be doing so because perhaps they are motivated by little more than their own selfish end of staying in power with minimal fuss. If words are not sufficient, then, such citizens will be justified to resort to non verbal means to achieve the ends of justice and the common good. If so, the question of "legality" will become a merely technical matter. The law is made for justice, not justice for the law. We must never lose sight of the fact that all governments and all laws are "necessary evils": they are there to serve the people, not the other way round.
Although they disagree on many things, they are agreed on one thing: the right of a citizen to rebel against what they honestly believe are unjust laws or administrative acts of the government of the country in which by historical accident or by choice, they happen to find themselves. Both of them distinguish between two concepts, legality and legitimacy and/or justice. Legality merely relates to whether according to the "existing laws", certain acts fall within or outside the permitted limits. Legitimacy and justice are more basic, it goes to the question of whether the existing laws are just or unjust and for that reason, whether such laws are "legitimate/illegimitate" in the context of the aims and purposes of why the people of a country are prepared to give up/surrender part of their rights to the state or government.
From the points of view of these two great thinkers, "justice" is a fundamental, basic and global concept which involves the principles of "equality" and "fairness" , whether economic, social, class, gender or political, is the ultimate justification of any country having a legal system at all. In that sense, the relevant laws are the means of implementing the aim of achieving justice or at least minimizing certain unavoidable injustices in specific areas of civic life. Laws are or should merely be "means", never "ends" in themselves.
The laws must themselves be "legitimate". Whether they are so will be determined in the final analysis, by the people themselves, not by the government, in accordance with the principles of justice, including the principle of equality before the law (eg. equality of the right to elect and be elected in the legislative and executive branches of the government). No unreasonable restriction upon such rights should be imposed.
We must never forget that without the goal of "justice", laws in themselves will have lost their raison d'être, ( the reason for their existence). Hence we should never mistake the "means" for the "end," The "end" of having laws, criminal law included, is to achieve justice for all in any specific community. When the laws no longer serve the ends of such justice, then it will be the right and even the duty of all rational human beings, concerned for the common good of their society and both in the interest of themselves and in the interest of other weaker or less articulate members of their community to speak up against those who are in authority and who are supposed to serve the common interest of their community but who are perceived, upon reasonable grounds, not to be doing so because perhaps they are motivated by little more than their own selfish end of staying in power with minimal fuss. If words are not sufficient, then, such citizens will be justified to resort to non verbal means to achieve the ends of justice and the common good. If so, the question of "legality" will become a merely technical matter. The law is made for justice, not justice for the law. We must never lose sight of the fact that all governments and all laws are "necessary evils": they are there to serve the people, not the other way round.
沒有留言:
張貼留言