早稲田政経2011 II

II Read this article and answer the questions below.

[1] From attacking burglars to jumping red lights, we are increasingly taking the law into our own hands. But can this be morally justified? Those who do take the law into their own hands often receive strong support from the public and the media. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has even suggested that victims should be encouraged to fight back against criminals. Such acts of bravery, he says, "make our society worthwhile."

[2] Lawlessness is evident elsewhere, too. A cyclist in central London speeds through a red light, annoying drivers who have to sit and wait. Yet one of the drivers is seen texting as the bike speeds off. Meanwhile, a student downloads music files from illegal file-sharing sites. All of these examples point to ( A ), in which people break the law unashamedly and even attempt to justify their actions on philosophical grounds―the law is flawed, the crime is victimless or, simply, everybody else is doing it, so why shouldn't we? But these claims are much weaker than they seem, and ask troubling questions about the way we, as citizens, understand the role of protest, and the respect we should show to laws.

[3] Of course, we are all lawbreakers to a degree. Most Internet users will accidentally break copyright laws, or not think too hard about the legality of passing on useful files. Every driver has broken the speed limit at some time, and many have driven over the alcohol limit. But such cases are different from deliberately breaking the law and then claiming you have done nothing wrong.

[4] Many arguments used to justify lawbreaking are classic examples of "neutralization theory." In the 1950s American sociologists Gresham Sykes and David Matza used this theory to categorize the excuses of criminals in ways that are still relevant today. Most people who break the law, they found, only do so selectively, and ( B ) law, convention, and morality. Typically they admire traits such as honesty, and have a capacity for guilty feelings. So neutralization is their way of coming to terms with their wrongdoing, minimizing feelings of guilt by redefining their actions.

[5] Sykes and Matza outlined five common neutralizing excuses. First, there is denial of responsibility, in which the actor was forced by circumstances ("I couldn't stop my bike at the red light―it was icy.") Second comes denial of injury ( C ). Third, denial of the victim ( D ). Fourth is "condemnation of the condemners": those who condemn the lawbreaking act are accused of themselves being corrupt or selfish ( E ). Fifth, and finally, you appeal to higher values than those embodied in the law ("Music should be free to all") But are such excuses ever philosophically sound?

[6] Take the red light question. Drivers do cause many more accidents involving cyclists than cyclists do among themselves ( F ).

[7] What of file sharers who know they are breaking the law? Here almost all the methods of neutralization come into play. File sharers declare they are forced to act by excessively high prices. More seriously, they tend to deny causing injury, arguing that downloading is a largely victimless crime―one where, unlike shoplifting, the original item remains intact for someone else to buy. Most interestingly, there is often an appeal to higher values: the idea that culture itself should be free. But are any of these good arguments? It is true that stealing from a shop and downloading music or other artistic content are not equivalent, but it doesn't follow that no one is harmed by the latter. Creative industries still rely on paying creators. In truth, Internet piracy is not a heroic act of civil disobedience; it is almost always a self-serving way of avoiding paying for content, just as cyclists running red lights are keen to get home quickly.

[8] Most people accept that it can be morally right to break an unjust law―think of Rosa Parks and her refusal to give up her seat on a racially segregated bus, and of those who joined her by boycotting the Alabama bus system. Perhaps some of our new social lawbreakers like to think that they are acting within a tradition of civil disobedience, ennobled by Henry Thoreau, Gandhi, and Martin Luther King, Jr. But how plausible is this? The philosopher John Rawls stressed that civil disobedience, in the tradition of Martin Luther King's famous "Letter from Birmingham City Jail," is not self-interested, and is always performed in public―for the good reason that civil disobedience is a form of communication that appeals to a community's sense of justice. As such, it should always be a last resort, once legal protests and demonstrations have failed.

[9] This means that downloading a pirated film you want to watch but can't afford, or ignoring a red light on the way to work, is not a principled act aimed at producing fairer laws. Smashing a fleeing intruder's head is not true justice. If cyclists and file sharers want to change laws, they should find public means of protest. Otherwise, those who choose self-serving ways of breaking the law will continue to have more in common with thieves who steal television sets than with Rosa Parks

Source: Prospect (January 27, 2010)

1 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (A)

(a) a growing interest in acts of bravery

(b) a movement that helps victims of crime

(c) a new age of social lawlessness

(d) a show of support from the public and the media

(e) a society that is more worthwhile

2 Use six of the eight words below to fill in blank space (B) in the best way. Indicate your choices for the second, fourth, and sixth positions.

(a) crime (b) desire (c) does (d) have (e) little (f) live (g) outside (h) to

3 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (C)

(a) ("It's too expensive.")

(b) ("My friend did the same ")

(c) ("Nobody was hurt")

(d) ("The doctors couldn't help")

(e) ("The hospital was closed ")

4 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (D).

(a) ("He deserved it ")

(b) ("I'm sorry ")

(c) ("It wasn't my fault")

(d) ("She said no.")

(e) ("You never know.")

5 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to fill in blank space (E)

(a) ("It doesn't really do any harm.")

(b) ("The music industry is so greedy anyway.")

(c) ("The police should be doing a better job.")

(d) ("The public doesn't seem to care.")

(e) ("We shouldn't rely too much on technology.")

6 Choose the most suitable order of sentences from those below to fill in blank space (F).

(a) He, in turn, might prove you are stealing from your company, but that doesn't excuse his own wrongdoing

(b) His reasoning is an example of the fourth excuse, in which the victim condemns the condemners.

(c) However, showing the faults of your accusers is in itself no justification for lawbreaking.

(d) If, for example, a thief stole something from you, you would naturally condemn him.

(e) This fact has led cycling lobbyist Chris Peck to say, "The biggest problem for cyclists is bad driving."

7 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to complete the following sentence

The writer suggests that as far as downloading artistic content like music is concerned,

(a) it allows no one to own a file.

(b) it causes someone to suffer as a result.

(c) it is basically a victimless crime

(d) it's as bad as stealing from a shop.

(e) it's so common that it shouldn't be a crime

8 Choose the most suitable answer from those below to complete the following sentence.

The writer concludes that

(a) activists of the past regarded breaking the law as unacceptable

(b) civil disobedience is an approach that is no longer effective in modern society.

(c) downloading copyrighted materials is an act that can be morally justified

(d) ignoring a red light appeals to a common sense of justice.

(e) people who object to current laws should convince others to support their position.