Ulteriori informazioni
Zusatztext Kimberly Brownlee's Conscience and Conviction is a major contribution to how we should think about conscientious objection and civil disobedience that is both distinctive and innovative ... This book should be of great interest to anyone with interest in these specific issues! or in political and legal philosophy more generally. Informationen zum Autor Kimberley Brownlee is a Professor of Philosophy at the University of British Columbia. Her current research focuses on sociability, social rights, loneliness, and freedom of association. She is the author of Being Sure of Each Other: An Essay on Social Rights and Freedoms (Oxford 2020), Conscience and Conviction: The Case for Civil Disobedience (Oxford 2012), co-editor of Disability and Disadvantage (Oxford 2009, with Adam Cureton), andco-editor of The Blackwell Companion to Applied Philosophy (Wiley 2016, with David Coady and Kasper Lippert-Rasmussen). Klappentext When is it justified to disobey the law? How should the law respond to instances of conscientious disobedience? This book presents the first full-length philosophical examination of the morality and legality of civil disobedience, and the legitimate responses to civil dissent open to the state. Zusammenfassung The book shows that civil disobedience is generally more defensible than private conscientious objection. Part I explores the morality of conviction and conscience. Each of these concepts informs a distinct argument for civil disobedience. The conviction argument begins with the communicative principle of conscientiousness (CPC). According to the CPC, having a conscientious moral conviction means not just acting consistently with our beliefs and judging ourselves and others by a common moral standard. It also means not seeking to evade the consequences of our beliefs and being willing tocommunicate them to others. The conviction argument shows that, as a constrained, communicative practice, civil disobedience has a better claim than private objection does to the protections that liberal societies give to conscientious dissent. This view reverses the standard liberal picture which seesprivate 'conscientious' objection as a modest act of personal belief and civil disobedience as a strategic, undemocratic act whose costs are only sometimes worth bearing. The conscience argument is narrower and shows that genuinely morally responsive civil disobedience honours the best of our moral responsibilities and is protected by a duty-based moral right of conscience. Part II translates the conviction argument and conscience argument into two legal defences. The first is a demands-of-conviction defence. The second is a necessity defence. Both of these defences apply more readily to civil disobedience than to private disobedience. Part II also examines lawful punishment, showing that, even when punishment is justifiable, civil disobedients have a moral right not to be punished. Oxford Legal Philosophy publishes the best new work in philosophically-oriented legal theory. It commissions and solicits monographs in all branches of the subject, including works on philosophical issues in all areas of public and private law, and in the national, transnational, and international realms; studies of the nature of law, legal institutions, and legal reasoning; treatments of problems in political morality as they bear on law; and explorations in the nature and developmentof legal philosophy itself. The series represents diverse traditions of thought but always with an emphasis on rigour and originality. It sets the standard in contemporary jurisprudence....
