| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立中央大學 === 哲學研究所 === 88 === Abstract
After the government lifted the martial law in the late 1980s, followed by the passage of Low on Assembly and Demonstration, the consciousness of the people has grown to a great degree. They not only dare express what they think but also vigorously struggle for their rights on the basis of sound reason. In August of 1997, a typhoon destroyed the buildings of Lincoln Ta-Jiun in His-Chi, Taipei County, killed twenty-eight people, and made hundreds of people homeless. Because the compensation for their loss could not be settled, residents of Lincoln Ta-Jiun decided to not pay their home loans, in the hope that this decision could put pressure on the banks and then force the government to solve this problem.
Nowadays there are more and more cases like the one of Lincoln Ta-Jiun that makes the government amend laws or revise policy goals by means of civil disobedience. Therefore, people have to ask: by whom, and based upon what reasons, is the government given the authority to manage people if the government fails to bring people happiness and safety in life. In case the government is careless about its laws and decision-making, or the government even makes unjust laws hurting people, are people still obligated to obey this government order?
I intend to discuss this issue from the perspective of the social contract theory. By exploring the resource of the government authority to manage people, I argue that the theory of social contract is the mainstream thought. In today democracies, the representative system appears to be the way for the government to operate once the government is established. However, is the representative system so perfect? Can one rationalize civil disobedience caused by the struggle for the rights people are supposed to have - such disobedience results either from the possible majority violence within the representative system, or from the unjust laws made by the government that harm the interests of the minority? Is the rationalization of civil disobedience necessary? If the answers to these two questions are positive, then what are their theoretical bases? These questions are the core for discussion in this thesis, and I will use the following chapters to elaborate on these questions.
Chapter two "The resource of the government authority to manage people": Divine right of king and the social contract theory are major schools of thought in traditional political philosophy. In this chapter I will discuss why the social contract theory is superior to divine right of king? And according to John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Thomas Hobbes, what is the state of nature before the contract is made? In the state of nature, for what reason are people willing to give up such state and enter into a contract with the government? This chapter will compare the above-mentioned philosophers and the differences among them, attempting to find the legitimacy basis for the government-managing people.
Chapter three "The operation of democratic politics": After the government is established, there must be a system as a tool for policy making and practice. In ancient Athens this system was direct democracy. What difficulties are there if direct democracy is to be put into practice in contemporary democracies? Besides, if it is difficult to practice direct democracy, which way are modern democracies going to take to operate? Since most countries in the modern world have large territories and huge population, does the representative system apply well? What are the defects in this system? These are the focal points for discussion in this chapter.
Chapter four "Civil disobedience in democracy": Since there are defects in the representative system mentioned in the previous chapter, how can people find a solution to eliminate these defects? Of many solutions that can be adopted by people, civil disobedience will be the central point in this chapter. "What is civil disobedience?" and it''s definition become particularly significant.
Chapter five "Theoretical basis of civil disobedience": In this chapter I intend to discuss the theories raised by H. D. Thoreau, John Rawls, Carl Cohen, and Hannah Arendt. Then, I would like to employ individual conscience, social justice, higher law or the natural law, as well as the social contract theory to examine and ascertain civil disobedience. Having evaluated civil disobedience, I will try to find a legitimate basis for civil disobedience from the viewpoint of the social contract theory.
|
|---|
