Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Arguments against Thoreau's notion of civil disobedience
Arguments against Thoreau's notion of civil disobedience
Consequencies of disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Let me begin by stating that civil disobedience is only positive when it remains peaceful. Once it becomes violent, it is infringing on the rights of others and can no longer be called civil. Our country was founded on civil disobedience. The Declaration of Independence was an act of civil disobedience, which jumpstarted the War of Independence. The first amendment of the Constitution guarantees its citizens the right to protest, and the supremacy clause in article VI, clause 2, says that the states cannot take away any rights given to a citizen by the central government. In the 2003 case of Scheidler v. Nat’l Org. for Women, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that civil disobedience was allowed if it didn’t violate the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt …show more content…
Poet and author, Henry David Thoreau, in his essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience said “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resigns his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward.” Thoreau not only wrote about civil disobedience, but participated in it as well. In 1849, Thoreau was thrown in jail for refusing to pay for taxes that went toward the Mexican-American War, or slavery. When friends and neighbors came together to pay for his bail, he refused stating that in jail he felt freer than people on the outside. The U.S. Bill of Rights emphasizes that government is derived from the consent of the governed, and when that government becomes destructive it is the citizen’s duty to alter or abolish …show more content…
is bursting with examples positive and successful cases of civil disobedience. Those disobediences were the start of the most important social reforms in our country’s shared history. In 1964, after the U.S. became involved in Vietnam, nearly a thousand students held a protest rally at Times Square in New York. In 1984, a group of protesters against the U.S.’s involvement in Central America rallied in front of the San Francisco Federal Building to get an anti-war protest document signed. There are many peaceful ways you can protest a war. In the past, there has been refusal to pay for war, or refusal to enlist in the military, occupation of draft centers, sit-ins, blockades, peace camps, and refusal to allow the military recruiters on a college or high school
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
"The Role of Civil Disobedience in Democracy." Civil Liberties Monitoring Project. Web. 01 Oct. 2011. .
Civil disobedience has its roots in one of this country’s most fundamental principles: popular sovereignty. The people hold the power, and those entrusted to govern by the people must wield
Thoreau was once sent to jail for refusing to pay his taxes and I support this episode of civil disobedience as justified. Thoreau did not pay his taxes because he objected the use of the revenue to finance the Mexican War and enforcement of slavery laws. He did not request for his money to be used for the enforcement of slavery laws, therefore felt he had the right to protest and act out civil disobedience. Paul Harris defines civil disobedience as "an illegal, public, nonviolent, conscientiously motivated act of protest, done by someone who accepts the legitimacy of the legal and political systems and who submits to arrest and punishment" (2). Before I supported his civil disobedience, I opted to see if it was justified.
In our country’s history, Civil Disobedience has had positive effects upon legislation and societal norms. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states five basic forms of expression that are to be protected by the government: Speech, Press, Assembly, Religion, and Petition. The Founders, in essence, created a means by which the average citizen can achieve political and social change. Justice William J. Brennan Jr. stated in 1989 that, “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that government cannot prohibit the expression of an idea simply because the society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.”* When citizens speak out or
In the past in this country, Thoreau wrote an essay on Civil disobedience saying that people make the law and have a right to disobey unjust laws, to try and get those laws changed.
Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other nonviolent means. The use of nonviolence runs throughout history however the fusion of organized mass struggle and nonviolence is relatively new.
Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 after spending a night in the Walden town jail for refusing to pay a poll tax that supported the Mexican War. He recommended passive resistance as a form of tension that could lead to reform of unjust laws practiced by the government. He voiced civil disobedience as "An expression of the individual's liberty to create change" (Thoreau 530). Thoreau felt that the government had established order that resisted reform and change. "Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary" (Thoreau 531).
The use of civil disobedience is a respectable way of protesting a governments rule. When someone believes that they are being forced into following unjust laws they should stand up for what they believe in no matter the consequences because it is not just one individual they are protesting for they are protesting for the well-being of a nation. Thoreau says ?to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable.? People should only let wrong and right be governed by what they believe not the people of the majority. The public should always stand for what is right, stand when they think a government is wrong, and trust in their moral beliefs.
Civil disobedience, is often the last step that people take to bring attention to a topic or subject that they feel strongly about. Every day is full of unjust rulings that may not be to everyone’s liking. Many people fight for what they believe in even if the outcome is bleak. You are your own self and you will always have your opinion that may not match all other citizen’s. Civil disobedience has escalated to a majority of non- violent protesting, although there are some cases including violence. It is a form of rebelling against what they feel is unfair or unconstitutional. Showing civil disobedience is an act that you must be willing to accept the legal consequences, which may include incarceration.
Throughout Thoreau’s essay, he expressed his opinions and beliefs on the importance of civil disobedience in a society. He talked about how one must use his or her moral sense, conscience, to decide what is just and unjust. From here, Thoreau urged his readers to take action, to stop the machine from continuing its lifeless duty. His call to action is if a system is prone to corruption, the people must disobey it. This means that personal endangerment may be needed to do what is right. Going against the status quo to uphold justice and ethics is the basic message behind Thoreau’s essay.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
Civil Disobedience Civil disobedience: “Refusal to obey civil laws in an effort to induce change in governmental policy or legislation, characterized by the use of passive resistance or other non-violent means” (Houghton, 2000). Although this definition seems broad enough to cover any aspect of a discussion, there is still much to be said about the subject. Martin Luther King wrote a fifty paragraph letter about the timeliness and wisdom in such an action, while Hannah Arendt managed to squeeze her definition into six (extra long) paragraphs regarding Denmark and the Jews.
With all of this taken into consideration, including laws such as freedom of speech, it only makes sense that civil disobedience is right and justified. With setbacks from people getting out of hand during protests, it is the best to realize that whilst practicing freedom, denizens of any given place should know the laws and never break them. Lastly, civil disobedience should be allowed and practiced safely, because it has always been around and has often resulted in the improvement of society. As with every law, there will always be setbacks and obstacles that need to be recognized, however, in the end, civil disobedience does more good than bad.