It doesn't sound like you've read the book. Civil Disobience is a writing that has profoundly influenced some of the most effective revolutionaries in our modern history. Ghandi was influenced by this writing, and MLK Jr. was influenced by them both (Ghandi and Thoreau).
No sir, I have not. I said that in my answer.
Honestly, it sounds like you're dismissing what I believe is an integral part of the discussion. A google search doesn't cut it. The piece is short and it's entirely available online. Check it out. Also, check out how it has influenced people like Ghandi, MLK Jr.
It was not my intent to dismiss you input. Your reply was thoughtful and thought proving. I enjoyed reading it.
What I believe is that there is a difference between something being "lawful" and something being "ethical." One is political. The other is not. Can they co-exist? Of course. But, when Hitler decided that it was lawful to imprison jews, gypsies and homosexuals (among others) in camps and kill them, it was then and remains now very, very immoral. By anyone's standard.
That is one definition of law and morals. I think laws can be religions, as in the Ten Commandments, which underpin a lot of our modern law. As to Hitler, I am not aware that even Hitler's Germany made it law (passed by a legislative body, which they had) to murder or even enslave people. I think he made edicts and had the power to pick people for civilian and military positions that would follow his edicts. If somebody knows I am wrong, please correct me. And I am in no way trying to justify or minimize what Hitler did or ordered be done. It was a terrible thing.
Thoreau would argue that, knowing fundamentally that this was immoral, it was the obligation of the citizen to refuse to comply with the laws requiring the internment and subsequent execution of these innocents. And that they should expect to be held accountable for their actions.
I can see that as a way to protest a law you consider unjust. It worked for Martin Luther King, Jr, and Ghandi. They did have a large portion of the populace behind them, and I am sure that helped. Values were changing in many parts of both country's citizenship, if not so much in the government. Remember that Eisenhower was the president that disallowed Arkansas' attempt to keep a college segregated. The Supreme Court had interpreted against segregation before that. The whole country didn't change overnight, but it was moving. And some during that time were willing to be incarcerated. But it was based on the Supreme Court's decision that the law of the nation changed, and came in line with what more and more of the citizenship was deciding was moral.
Have you ever heard of the My Lai Massacre that occurred in Vietnam? It was a dark day for our military. When asked, many soldiers claimed they were "just following orders." It's remains a lesson in the difference between lawful and moral. And it's the actions of Hugh Thompson Jr that stand out, because he was willing to defy direct orders and do what he believed was both unlawful, but just and moral.
Yes I have heard of My Lai. There was no excuse for what happened there. I must tell you however, that is not an example of the difference between lawful and moral. Military personnel have been taught for at least the last 50 years that I am aware of, that they not only can disobey an order if it is illegal, but have a duty to do so. An order to commit murder is illegal. Granted a soldier who disobeys an order and claims that as his defense at a Court-Martial, will have the burden of proof on him, that it was indeed an illegal order. But the point is, if it is an illegal order to commit a crime, it must be disobeyed, or the service member becomes complicit in the crime.
As to Mr. Hugh Thompson Jr, his was an act of moral imperative and bravery. His crew must be saluted as well. They must have had much trepidation. They would have had to worry about being shot themselves, or having to shoot at US soldiers. Not a choice most of us would want to be required to make.
