More handpicked essays just for you.
Thoreau's views expressed in civil disobedience
Thoreau's views expressed in civil disobedience
Henry david thoreau essay on civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thoreau's views expressed in civil disobedience
In his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, Henry David Thoreau illustrates that when the government carries out a system of tyranny, or disregards and exploits individual sovereignty, it is time for man to recognize his right to revolution in order to defend himself and the slaves’ sovereignty. Thoreau believes that a man should utilize the loopholes in the government, dismantle the inequality of the law, and bring about awareness of the systemic problems that rob men of their liberty, so that everyone may live in fairness. In the face of the behavior of the US government, he feels heartache in relation to the slave's unfortunate experience. He says that “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable” (2), which presents justification for man’s participation in civil disobedience and man should fight for himself instead of being controlled. …show more content…
The only way to freedom is to take action and resist, so that men are able to grasp and determine their own destiny. In addition to the people's rights, Thoreau also acknowledges the American government's indifferent attitude to slavery, which indicates the government’s disregard for human rights. He says, “As for adopting the ways which the State has provided for remedying the evil, I know not of such ways. They take too much time, and a man’s life will be gone”
Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King, in “Civil Disobedience” and “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” respectively, both conjure a definitive argument on the rights of insubordination during specified epochs of societal injustice. Thoreau, in his enduring contemplation of life and its purpose, insightfully analyzes the conflicting relationship between the government and the people it governs. He considerately evokes the notion that the majority of people are restrained by the government and society from making decisions with consideration of their conscience and that people need to overcome the reign of the government to realize their own ethics and morals. King, in accordance, eloquently and passionately contends the injustice presented in the unfair treatment of and the discriminatory attitude towards Blacks. Even though, Thoreau successfully accentuates his main concerns in his argument, his effectiveness in persuasion—appeals, conclusion, and practical application—pales in comparison to that of King’s.
“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.
This letter covers the ways in which peaceful protest and standing up against injustice can lead to positive results. Both pieces conveyed a similar message of standing up for what is right. The strongest rhetorical methods which Thoreau uses are allusions, logos, ethos and rhetorical questions. However, King’s use of Thoreau’s piece was written prior to the civil war, and was in response to the Mexican-American war and slavery in some territories. It was intended for US citizens; more specifically, those who are unhappy with the way the United States government is ran.
By this, Thoreau means that the state would rather put protesting men in prison than give up war and slavery and that it would be better to not pay your taxes than to pay money to support the government’s bloodthirst. People are not free if they are being forced to pay the government for causes that the people might not necessarily support. There is always room for the government to improve. Thoreau wanted a government that didn’t just look to the interests of the powerful majority, one in which individuals with consciences lead, instead of a collective power making decisions for the individuals. The people have the right to resist a government that isn’t serving them properly or is treating them unjustly, or is using their funding for immoral causes; in fact, it is the people’s duty to do so, for only through civil disobedience can the people simulate change.
Throughout modern American culture certain laws passed by the majority have been considered unjust by a wise minority. However, with the logical and emotional appeal of hard fought battles, voices have been heard, and the minds of the majority can sometimes be converted to see the truth. Thoreau, after spending a night in jail and seeing the truth hidden behind the propaganda of the majority, became convinced that he could no longer accept his government’s behavior of passing laws that benefit the majority with degrading the minority. It’s quite ironic that by the government imprisoning Thoreau he became freer then ever before. He was able to see how the government turned peaceably inclined men into controllable machines. Thoreau saw how the government dealt with its citizens as only a body, while completely disregarding the sense, intellect, and moral beliefs of its people. In his essay “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau stated that “a government ruled by majority in all cases cannot be based on justice.” He further believed that “under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also prison.” This point made by Thoreau can be seen as the truth throughout history. A just man never sits by quietly watching the majority degrade the minority to suit their own immoral purposes. Like Thoreau, another just man who stood out from the quiet minority was Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. King was, as well, willing to suffer for his views to put an end to racial segregation, and was arrested on numerous occasions for holding strong in his believes and spreading his message throughout the minds of all God’s children. King often cited conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and disobeying unjust ones. In an essay written by King titled “A letter from Birmingham Jail,” King clearly defines the interpretation of the differerence between the two kinds of laws. “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority group compels a minority group to obey but does not make binding on itself. This is a difference made legal. By the same token, a just law is a code that a majority compels a minority to follow and that it is willing to follow itself. This is sameness made legal.” To further understand this King quotes from St. Augustine himself who once stated “any law that uplifts human personality is just.
Would everyone like to see how the community is affected ? The community and neighborhood is facing some major consequences. According to “Excerpts Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau described how this one person refused to pay the taxes to the government he decides to say something but his saying resulted to him being sent to prison for trying to stand up to the government. The government has not been telling us the actual issues . Based on the excerpt from the “Civil Disobedience” there are exactly three main points to the story. The first main idea is the people have been using their own ideas to try to get a way to end the government way for all of us to live because we need to see the point for all of us to live a life in
In the “Civil Disobedience”, an essay written in 1848 and published in 1849 by Henry Thoreau. Henry starts off by arguing about how even though there are laws, policies, regulations, American has not quite develop the sense of morally righteousness in its full extension. He relates this undeveloped circumstances to events like the Mexican-American war, or the fact that he are treating another race of human beings as tangible items; the Negro race being under slavery.
While the Bill of Rights outlines Americans citizen born rights, Thoreau talked about the need for American citizens to act on their judgment. A responsibility they have to protecting their rights and ultimately using those rights to bring light to situations were the government allows for wrongdoing; in hopes that the wrongdoing can be corrected before more damage can be done. Furthermore Thoreau delves into the rights given to Americans and they impact Americans can make when they exercise those rights they have been
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was a philosopher and writer who is well known for his criticism of the American government during the time. During Thoreau’s life, there were two major issues being debated in the United States: slavery and the Mexican-American War. Both issues greatly influenced his essay, as he actually practiced civil disobedience in his own life by refusing to pay taxes in protest of the Mexican War. He states that the government should be based on conscience and that citizens should refuse to follow the law and have the duty not to participate and stay as a member of an unjust institution like the government. I argue that the notion of individualism and skepticism toward government is essential to the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
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.
In his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.
“On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” is evocative of some of the most famous writings of the Revolutionary Era. In comparison to “The Declaration of Independence”, both works include the three elements of Aristotle’s rhetorical triangle: logos, ethos, and pathos. When employed tactfully, the combination of these three components can create a very compelling argument. Thoreau’s essay elicits the idea that it is our civic duty and moral obligation to revolt when great injustices- slavery being the injustice he chose to write about- are occurring amongst us. By including factual evidence, referencing authority figures such as George Washington and
From these three men, we can learn the significance of detaching ourselves from the social norm and instead, fight for our values in a non-violent way, in order to make a change in our government’s corrupt and unjust laws. In “Resistance to Civil Government,” Thoreau articulates the importance he places on resistance against a powerful, controlling government. He opens his essay with a reference to the quote, “‘That government is best which governs not at all,’” and shares the motto, “‘That government is best which governs least’” (Civil).... ...
Henry David Thoreau was an American philosopher lived in 19th century, when young and feeble American society was not powerful as nowadays. His illustrious work called as “Civil disobedience” demonstrated his polar point of view towards unjust government. Objection to pay taxes, protests, follow own conscience are only some of the methods of disobeying. His main point is that any man, who treats himself as a conscience man, should differentiate laws in order to determine which law is right or wrong, and consequently no to obey that unjust law. I mostly agree with this statement, and this essay will show how does he reach such conclusion and will provide arguments for and against to this statement.