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.
America’s situation in 19th century was significantly different from today’s situation. For instance, in 19th century slavery and slave trading were an ordinary practice and almost every sixth American was a slave. Thoreau was not just a citizen, who lived for his own interests and was indifferent to politics, he was an opposite one. He could not ignore unjust affairs, such as slavery, Mexican war, deceives, and unjust taxes. In the United States slavery flourished and turned to beneficial way of merchandising by catching Africans and shipping them to America. Drawing conclusions here, it can be said that there was not anyone, who would disapprove this. However, Thoreau was thinking contemptuously towards this and it was one of the reasons for reaching that conclusion. Another thing he was concerned of was a Mexican war, which was unfair according to Thoreau, due to the fact that the US government acted as an aggressor towards neighbors and has just annexed Texas. Some of soldiers seem to have a disdain against their own government, but...
... middle of paper ...
... it relates to Semey polygon. These kinds of things catalyse a liberal man to reject such government. Another point which is proposed by Thoreau is that an attempt to have a better government must be made due to the fact that nothing to lose here. This is because people do not have anything with such kind of government. They do not have liberty, respect and something. Finally, Thoreau’s principles of civil disobedience succeeded in Gandhi and King’s movements, which bring a certain group of people liberty and hope for a bright future.
In conclusion, even though Thoreau’s conclusion has several opposite opinions such as possibility of chaos, punishment for disobeying and difference of levels of conscience, unjust law should be disobeyed, because it is unjust towards humanity, and people should have a better government by civil disobedience and politically develop.
Thoreau talks about the politics, power and civil disobedience in his works. He believed that when many thought alike, the power was stronger within that minority. I think that Thoreau's intention was to point out that those people who dare to go against what seems to be unjust and go against the majority, and stand erect, are the people who transform society as a whole.
It is also a big part of Divergent, because being Divergent is essentially being your own person, you are not able to conform to what the government wants. This to Thoreau would be a great thing, this can be seen when he says, “It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will” (Thoreau 255). So Thoreau believes that a single living man has more vitality and force than the traditional government. This is also true in Divergent, because Beatrice fights her government in every movie, she fights and is independent despite the masses who have become accustom to the tradition of relying on the government. Thoreau also goes on to talk about not saying there shouldn 't be a government at all, but one that should be there and eventually fade off. This can be seen when he says, “I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government” (Thoreau 255). This quote is significant, because Beatrice also wished this was possible. Throughout the movie she tries to explain why being Divergent is okay, but is essentially “shot down” in regard to her claim. It is also significant for Thoreau because he is independent, but not forceful in asking the government to stop all at once. Thoreau and Beatrice would agree that they do not need a government, and can be self-reliant and would come to an agreement on individualism, but they also would not expect the government to go away entirely anytime soon. Thus they both proposed that the government change in some way or
In 1848, David Thoreau addressed and lectured civil disobedience to the Concord Lyceum in response to his jail time related to his protest of slavery and the Mexican War. In his lecture, Thoreau expresses in the beginning “That government is best which governs least,” which sets the topic for the rest of the lecture, and is arguably the overall theme of his speech. He chastises American institutions and policies, attempting to expand his views to others. In addition, he advances his views to his audience by way of urgency, analyzing the misdeeds of the government while stressing the time-critical importance of civil disobedience. Thoreau addresses civil disobedience to apprise the people the need for a civil protest to the unjust laws created
Thoreau, inspired by the actions of Jefferson, stood up for slaves and soldiers in the Mexican-American war by using civil disobedience, to help preserve the American philosophy of the unalienable rights. He urged for other citizens to go against the authority. Thoreau refused to pay taxes due to his strong opposition to slavery and the Mexican-American War. He spent a night in prison due to his refusal to pay taxes to a government in which the money would be going to such things as slavery and the war. Thoreau wants for the people to realize the wrongness in taking soldiers
Thoreau is targeting all of the American citizens with this essay. He is making a statement to them and trying to convince them that as a whole we need to make a stand against the American government. Thoreau is attempting to demonstrate his self-reliance against the government. He upholds his specific principles and encouraged nonaggressive acts of political resistance to protest government policy. An example of his resistance is when he states “that he cannot without disgrace be associated with it. I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave's government also”. The two major issues occurring during the writing of this essay were the Mexican-American war and slavery. During this time period many northerners began to push against slavery causing a divide in the American society. The Mexican-American War ...
injustice to another, then I say, break the law." This shows Thoreau’s policy of civil
In my first analysis of Thoreau's essay, one of my strengths was being able to identify Thoreau's use of logos, or reasoning. In this instance, Thoreau draws from an example of a popular scholar, Paley, who argues: "'So long as the established government cannot be resisted or changed without public inconveniency, it is the will of God'" (Thoreau). In my analysis, I acknowledged Thoreau's citing of this quote and then demonstrated how he flipped Paley's argument. He reasons with the audience that doing the right thing, though sometimes unpleasant, will yield greater rewards in the long run.
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.
For acts of civil disobedience to be justified, those acts need to be acts of protest. Thoreau desired a change ...
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.
In this short story Thoreau plays the protagonist as well as a pacifist. He continually reiterates his beliefs of law and conscience. Thoreau believes we have a conscience to determine right and wrong and views the government, at a state level at least, as useless. He gives the reader several examples of things the government does that would be against most conscious decisions. Such as: The listing of accomplishments the “government” made possible, included in this list is the repetition of the word “It” referring to the government. “It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished”(221).
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 has 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 in the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attention 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, are present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose. To begin with, Thoreau expresses that civil disobedience should be more implemented when the just resistance of the minority is seen legally unjust to the structure conformed by the majority. Supporting his position, Thoreau utilizes the role of the national tax in his time; its use which demoralizes the foreign relationship of the U.S.; its use which “enables the State to commit violence and shed innocent blood”; its use which supports “the present Mexican War” (Thoreau 948, 940).
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.
In "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau criticizes the American government for its democratic nature, namely, the idea of majority ruling. Like earlier transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau believes in the importance of the individual. In a society where there are many individuals with conflicting perceptions and beliefs, Emerson chooses passivity and isolation to avoid conflict with others. However, unlike Emerson, Thoreau rejects passivity and challenges his readers to stand up against the government that focuses on majorities over individuals. Thoreau argues that when power is in the hands of the people, the majority rules, "not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau 64). Thoreau portrays this very fundamental element of democracy, w...