Democracia y desobediencia

by Peter Singer

Asking, "Why, or in what circumstances, ought we to obey the law?", this work focuses on the common view that disobedience to the law, while justifiable in a dictatorship, is much more difficult to justify in a democracy. It then develops a theory of political obligation in an ideal democracy. After discussing various forms of disobedience, the author wonders to what extent systems of government approximate to this ideal and why Western democracies fall short of it. The book concludes with a brief case the development of disobedience in Northern Ireland.

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Nonfiction

Unknown Binding

First published May 24, 1973

About the author

Peter Singer is sometimes called "the world’s most influential living philosopher" although he thinks that if that is true, it doesn't say much for all the other living philosophers around today. He has also been called the father (or grandfather?) of the modern animal rights movement, even though he doesn't base his philosophical views on rights, either for humans or for animals.


In 2005 Time magazine named Singer one of the 100 most influential people in the world, and the Gottlieb Duttweiler Institute ranked him 3rd among Global Thought Leaders for 2013. (He has since slipped to 36th.) He is known especially for his work on the ethics of our treatment of animals, for his controversial critique of the sanctity of life doctrine in bioethics, and for his writings on the obligations of the affluent to aid those living in extreme poverty. 


Singer first became well-known internationally after the publication of Animal Liberation in 1975. In 2011 Time included Animal Liberation on its “All-TIME” list of the 100 best nonfiction books published in English since the magazine began, in 1923. Singer has written, co-authored, edited or co-edited more than 50 books, including Practical Ethics; The Expanding Circle; How Are We to Live?, Rethinking Life and Death, The Ethics of What We Eat (with Jim Mason), The Point of View of the Universe (with Katarzyna de Lazari-Radek), The Most Good You Can Do, Ethics in the Real World and Utilitarianism: A Very Short Introduction. His works have appeared in more than 30 languages.

Singer’s book The Life You Can Save, first published in 2009, led him to found a non-profit organization of the same name. In 2019, Singer got back the rights to the book and granted them to the organization, enabling it to make the eBook and audiobook versions available free from its website, www.thelifeyoucansave.org.



Peter Singer was born in Melbourne, Australia, in 1946, and educated at the University of Melbourne and the University of Oxford. After teaching in England, the United States and Australia, he has, since 1999, been Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics in the University Center for Human Values at Princeton University. He is married, with three daughters and four grandchildren. His recreations include hiking and surfing. In 2012 he was made a Companion of the Order of Australia, the nation’s highest civic honour.

Reviews

[Sergei Moska · Rating 3 out of 5]

This book deserves more than this brief review.

Importance: I read this book because the literature on political obligation kept referring to it. So it's a big deal. It offers an interesting and not very seldom seen justification of obligation, one grounded in estoppel. The gist is that by voting, you're leading others to believe that you consider yourself at least prima facie obligated to obey the outcome. I'm not persuaded by the argument, but it's an important one

Quality: Singer is smart and the book is very easy to read while remaining intelligent. The philosophical part deserves four stars. The problem is that the quality drops precipitously the moment that Singer talks about anything practical. Many of his suggestions do not deal at all with core issues in the political science - especially political institutions - literature.

"But Sergei, you clown, the book was written in 1973! Much of that literature was undeveloped or just plain didn't exist back then!"

Fair point; my reply would be that maybe the book deserved four stars when it came out, so if that's how you assess the quality of books, that's what the book should get. I'm more interested in contemporary application, and if I use that standard, this ends up being quite an uneven book. That said, I'm very glad to have read it and will refer to it again and again over time.

[William Smith · Rating 5 out of 5]

A superb elucidation of whether one should, or should not, follow the law within a democratic system. A fantastically erudite exposition - a must read.

[Andrea · Rating 4 out of 5]

I checked this text out of the library purely on a whim. I do not think I would have actively sought it out under any other circumstances, but Peter Singer's name on the spine of the book was enough to persuade me to read it. I'm not sure what my expectations of the book were when I checked it out, but being a fan of Singer's work, I felt it would be worth reading.

Peter Singer is thorough, if nothing else. He examines the role of civil disobedience on democratic institutions in contrast with the civil disobedience in non-democratic governments (for example, he references non-democratic governments in effect due to usurpation and non-democratic governments determined by rights of lineage). His report is laudably unbiased and he examines the option of disobedience from numerous angles (briefly but thoroughly examining the credibility, plausibility, and justifiability of each argument). On the whole he argues that individuals under a democratic State have fewer reasons for rebelling against the system than non-democratic ones, though in his arguments he finds no shortage of examples to the contrary.

For simplicity's sake, his assertions are wholly theoretical and only in the Appendix does he go into specific, real-world details for more than a few lines at a time. His democratic model, too, upon which his views on acquiescence, acceptance, and civil-disobedience are based is theoretical. His arguments are largely based on a purely direct democracy style of decision-making as opposed to the "representative" Democracy that is more or less in effect today (he does, however, acknowledge this, and he does go into a fair amount of detail on the issue on several occasions).

I liked the book, on the whole, though as I said before I probably would not have read it if it had not caught my attention on my library's shelf. It was a quick read, only about 150 pages, so I do think it was worth the time.

[M · Rating 4 out of 5]

Little bit of part 1. Seems good so far, and I quite like the JCR analogy.