In the article “Thoreau’s Case for Political Disengagement,” the author, Carl Bankston, examines Thoreau’s portrayal of having a moral conscience while being controlled by society. The author distinctly explains Thoreau’s ideas, while also giving his own opinion on the subject. Absorption in civic involvement, from the point of view Thoreau gives us, dimin-ishes the independent self and therefore diminishes the ability to think for oneself, which is necessary for the use of the full range of moral judgment. Moral judg-ment, in turn, is essential for true service to civil society. Paradoxically, only those who resist the state serve it with their con-sciences, and only those who hold them-selves apart from civic cooperation can improve the political order. Thoreau’s case for political disengagement foretells the dis-tinction that David Riesman would make in the middle of the twentieth century between “inner-directed” and “other-directed” types of social personalities, probably because Riesman unconsciously drew on that same tradition of American individualism, which has not been a mere cultural lag but a voice in the ongoing dia-logue of American political thought. The ideas and decisions of the “other-directed” type come from social expectations and demands, while principled introspection guides the “inner-directed.” (P.11) The “inner directed” is a representation of people who make their own moral decisions. They do not allow society to change their opinions. The “other-directed” is a portrayal of the higher in command or society controlling the soldier. It is people that listen to society and higher commanders. Soldiers are controlled by society in that they are not able to make their own decisions while in battle and are expec... ... middle of paper ... ... commanders just as a machine does automatically. In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau believes that a soldier in combat is viewed as “other directed” due to the fact that they do not have a political or moral conscience. In various cases, soldiers do have a conscience. During the Vietnam War, soldiers were forced to use tactics to be able to kill innocent civilians. Some of the soldiers chose not to listen to the higher power and did not partake in the massacre of the Vietnamese community. This contradicts Thoreau’s theory based on the idea that soldiers do not have a conscience. There are exceptions when “other directed” soldiers transform into “inner directed” soldiers. Works Cited Bankston, Carl L.. "Thoreau's Case for Political Disengagement." Modern Age 1 Jan. 2010: Print. Thoreau, Henry David. Civil Disobedience. Boston: David R. Godine, 1969. Print.
Everyday individuals face decisions in which they must choose whether to do what is appealing to them or to choose a more suitable and compliable choice. In the fictional work of ‘The Things They Carried’ by Tim O’ Brien, certain characters such as Tim O’ Brien himself must face decisions similar to these. The novel demonstrates that when an individual is faced with a decision in which there is a choice that he may have to conform, the individual tends to conform due to not wanting to embarrass themselves or to not be portrayed as a coward to others. However when the individual is challenged with these types of decisions, the choice does not matter since the outcome will be what the individual was trying to avoid. That is to say that in the excerpt “The Rainy River” Tim O’ Brien was going through a conflicting decision on whether or not he should go to the war. Yet, as we see it turns out that either choice will lead to either shame or cowardice. If he goes to the war he feels that he will be a coward and that he gave up his own morals and values and accepted something he does not believe in, but if he does not go to war he will be shunned by society and will be labelled as a coward because he will not fight for his country.
He met the government “once a year--no more--in the person of its tax-gatherer; this is the only mode in which a man situated as I am necessarily meets it. ”iii In the case of Thoreau and King, their struggle could not be resolved by simple negotiation. The third step, as King calls it, is self-purification.
Though Thoreau 's basis was more along the lines of environmentalism he was quite the political man in his essay Civil Disobedience. Thoreau 's thoughts on the American government can be seen in the first few paragraphs
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.
When Thoreau returned home his family noticed a change in his personality. He was no longer accepting people’s opinions as facts but would shock people with his own independent and unconventional opinions. He desired to live his life with the freedom to think and act as he wished. He obtained a local teaching job and refused to Flog children as punishment. Instead he would give moral lectures. The community objected to this method of punishment and forced Thoreau to flog his incorrigible children. That day Thoreau flogged six students and then turned in his resignation. He did so believing that physical punishment should have no place in education.
Additionally, Emerson and Thoreau both warn the reader of the dangers when individuality is marginalized. Emerson views society as a “conspiracy against the manhood of every one of...
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).
By looking at the armed force as assets in which can be disposable for a greater cause instead of looking at them as an unpredictable union of people who could assist and aid for a common goal is interesting as today’s society there are time in which labor came as position for those who meet the requirements and those who took upon those position were no longer what they were before as they across a zone in which they are turned into pieces of pawn for a larger organization and the organization’s cause. If people were to chose, I wonder how many would chose to be a pawn for the greater good during a time period in which it was of the last option they had against other side of power. However, it's intriguing that people choices becomes the introduction of another person’s story as the decision are linked together and a similar fashion in which can be depicted by a posed question that goes “which came first the chicken or the egg?” Who can we place the blame upon when there’s a cycle in which people do not know where it begins nor where it ends? It's sad to think about the problems in which are risen by the conflict of two super power houses, however, people are left to pick up the pieces and decipher them to further allow himself/herself to accept what is left and to grow as an individual who can influence a handful of people with their story to tell and pass along their way of
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
The soldiers at My Lai were in an environment conducive to obeying orders. They have been trained to follow the orders of their commanders; respect for authority is weighed heavily upon. It is hard for them to disobey because they have been integrated into the social structure of the military and when in the middle of a war they would have nowhere to turn if they choose to disobey the orders of their commanders. The consequences of disobedience for them could be sent to death. A classic example of the power of authoritative factors is provided by Stanley Milgram’s
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.
Henry David Thoreau was a poet, social philosopher, and educator in the early to mid- 1800s (Hampton). He graduated from Harvard University in 1837 and, upon his return to his hometown of Concord, Massachusetts, befriended Ralph Waldo Emerson, also a philosopher and poet (Hampton, “Ralph Waldo Emerson”). Emerson was also the leader of the Transcendentalist movement which was based on the idea that people should lead by example -- social reform begins with the individual, not the government -- and that the movement should be peaceful (Woodlief, Ruehl). Thoreau agreed with this approach until the United States invaded Mexico in May, 1846 (Brown, Witherell). Opposed to slavery, Thoreau saw the invasion of Mexico as an attempt by the government to extend slavery westward. In his essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” published in 1849 with the original title, “Resistance to Civil Government,” Thoreau protests against the government and states that is a man’s duty to rise up against the government when the government commits a wrong (Thoreau). In his writings, Thoreau uses the three rhetorical approaches of Pathos, Ethos, and Logos in his attempts to persuade his readers to his point of view (Heinrichs).
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.