First thoughts: Using Feinberg's framework, what are the obligations of a citizen to obey
the FSAct and how should an abolitionist judge rule or respond when faced with FSA
cases?
Feinberg distinguishes between private and public obligations of a citizen. A private
obligation resides in an individual’s consciousness and is bound by the person’s morality.
When an individual assumes a public office, they have the obligation to adhere to the duties
of their office rather than their personal morality. There could be difficult cases where
individuals holding public office may violate their public duty for sake of morality and their
conscience but that should be kept to the minimum. When it comes to judges, it is difficult
to dismiss their duties in lieu for morality because the nature of their office requires them to
publicly justify the reason behind their decisions. Therefore, Feinberg’s framework identifies
5 ways for abolitionist judges to respond to FSAct. These include:
1. Apply the FSAct even if it is against the judge’s conscience- the constitutions
recoginzes slavery. Judges have the responsibility to interpret these laws and apply
them even if it is against their moral convictions.
2. Apply the conscience and dismiss the very law they swore to hold- this option risks
the justice system since the judge will be required to explain and justify their
decision. Not applying the law and appealing to their morality in the decision may not
provide the best justification.
3. Resign from your duties as a sign of protest - Feinberg does not find this heroic and
thinks it does not contribute in any way to reducing the suffering of slaves. He sees
it as a way for judges to “self-indulge”.
4. Cheat (violate the constitution to ensure moral principles)- unlike a juror who has
more chances of being caught cheating the system, a judge doesn’t have the same
chances. If judges cheat, it will have big consequences to the justice system since
they are the highest representation of a legal system.
5. “Ameliorist Solution”- basically the judge makes a case for what the law is and what
the law ought to be. Judges can add their own interpretation and contribute to the
evolution of the law.
