Previous generations have opposed wars that promoted oppression, they fought for human rights. By engaging in these activities these individuals had to go against a higher power. They had to disagree with the system and how it operates. Therefore, they engaged in the act of civil disobedience. Civil disobedience is an active, refusal way of obeying certain laws, demands, and commands of a government or higher power. There are many individuals who have previously engaged in the act of civil disobedience people such as; Mahatma Gandhi, Henry Thoreau, Martin Luther King, college students in the 1960s and many more. All these individuals have the same concepts of civil obedience and believe the government has to be changed. Although, Martin Luther …show more content…
Thoreau does not support the structure of the current system and suggests people should be self-governed. Thoreau writes “government is best which governs least” (Thoreau 1). Thoreau does not trust involvement of a government in an individual’s life and claims that the government should have minimal involvement in its citizen 's life. Thoreau points out “Government is at best but an expedient” (Thoreau 1). Thoreau knows that a government is needed to do certain things, however, Thoreau argues the government is not needed to control an individual’s life. Thoreau argues “There will never be a really free and enlightened State, until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power” (Thoreau 18). IN Thoreau’s defense one can never accomplish freedom unless he/she is given the power to govern themselves. To be the master of their own ruling. Meanwhile, Martin Luther King’s idea of the government is different to that of Thoreau. King claims that a government is needed although it has to Changed. King describes our nation as a nation that does not care about its people but rather about the power it has. He explains “...A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death”. He points out that if the current government does not stop focusing on war rather than things as education it will soon collapse. Both individuals disagree with how the government functions and imply there needs to be an alternative. While Thoreau mentions that an individual should be the one to govern themselves, King suggests the government is needed for healthy development of
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.
Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent leader in the independence movement of India once said, “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”(brainyquotes.com) Gandhi states that protest and civil disobedience are necessary when the authority becomes unscrupulous. This correlates to “Declaration of Independence,” by Thomas Jefferson; “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau; and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr., because all three leaders felt that civil disobedience was important to help protest against an unjust ruling. Jefferson stood up to the injustice of the king by writing the Declaration of Independence and urged others to stand up for the independence of America. Thoreau exemplified
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 ...
In the great era of foundational philosophers, two stand out, Plato and Thoreau. Each had their own opinion on various topics, especially on civil disobedience. Plato’s life span was approximately 428-348 BC. Plato wrote numerous works throughout his lifetime, however we will be focusing on one, the Crito. Thoreau’s life span was 1817-1862. To help us determine what civil disobedience means to both of these philosophers we will first look at a general definition. According to Merriam-Webster civil disobedience is defined as “refusal to obey governmental demands or commands especially as a nonviolent and usually collective means of forcing concessions from the government.” This definition will act as a springboard to compare and contrast both of their thoughts on the topic. We will determine, according to Plato and Thoreau, when we are called to engage in civil disobedience and when the moral parameters of civil disobedience are pushed too far.
By definition justice means the quality of being just or fair. The issue then stands, is justice fair for everyone? Justice is the administration of law, the act of determining rights and assigning rewards or punishments, "justice deferred is justice denied.” The terms of Justice is brought up in Henry David Thoreau’s writing, “Civil Disobedience.”
The difference between a rock and a human truly just comes down to a few different variations of carbon molecules. Yet this straightforward science ignores why humans, in all of their complexity, stem from such a random happenstance. Only knowing this science of life has not necessarily led to understanding its meaning. For that answer, famed transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau look within the self, rather than in a laboratory. In his essay, Self-Reliance, Emerson hypothesizes the meaning to be in independence; whereas, Thoreau, from his nature experience in Walden, theorizes it to be in simplicity. At the least, Thoreau finds it in a life without an intrusive government, which is the reason he pens Civil Disobedience.
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
Only a few variations of carbon molecules truly separate organisms from objects. Yet this seemingly straightforward science ignores why humans, in all of their complexity, stem from just random happenstance, revealing that the science of life does not necessarily expose its meaning. For that answer, famed Transcendentalists Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau look within the self, rather than a laboratory. In his Self-Reliance essay, Emerson hypothesizes the meaning to be in independence; whereas, Thoreau, from his venture in the woods in Walden, theorizes it to be in simplicity. Writing Civil Disobedience later on, Thoreau would require that simple life be free of an intrusive government. But these discrepancies in detail should not mask the men’s fundamental advice: merely following intuition can achieve a meaningful existence.
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.
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. There were such cases during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, when there was unfair discrimination against the Afro-American community and Americans refusing to pay poll taxes to support the Mexican War. They used civil disobedience to eventually get legislation to stop the injustice brought against them and their nation. Civil disobedience is defined as refusal to obey civil laws or decrees, which usually takes the form of passive resistance. People practicing civil disobedience break a law because they consider the law unjust, and want to call attention to its injustice, hoping to bring about its withdrawal.
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.
In “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau claims that men should act from their conscience. Thoreau believed it was the duty of a person to disobey the law if his conscience says that the law is unjust. He believed this even if the law was made by a democratic process. Thoreau wrote that a law is not just, only because the majority votes for it. He wrote, “Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?” (Thoreau, P. 4). Thoreau wanted a government in the United States that would make the just laws based on conscience, because the people of the country would not let the elected representatives be unfair. Thoreau did not think people can disobey any law when they want to. He believed that people should obey just laws; however, Thoreau thought that not all laws were right, and he wrote that a man must obey what is right, not what is the law: “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right” (Thoreau, P. 4).
The act of civil disobedience existed for a long time, dating back to the Shadrach, Meshach, Abednego, and early Christians. The height of the civil rights movement was the 1950’s to 1960’s. During this time period, many activists fought for racial equality and rights. Civil disobedience was practiced by these people who fought for racial equality and rights. Martin Luther King Jr. and Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mocking Bird used civil disobedience as an act of fighting back against injustice in order for a better society. These two people, Martin Luther King Jr. and Atticus Finch, of the time of the 20th century practiced civil disobedience in the name of justice.
In “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau stated that government should be expedient and conscientious. He started off his essay with his motto, “That government is best which governs least” and “That government is best which governs not at all.” He meant that we did not need a government that made rules and that the government should let the people do whatever they wanted to do. He believed that government should be expedient, not inexpedient. “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient.” He used a lot of examples to justify the inexpedient government. One of them was the Mexican-American war. “Witness the present Mexican war, the work of comparatively a few individuals using the standing government as their tool; for, in the outset, the people would not have consented to this measure…” It was inexpedient because war was just a tool for a few powerful individuals and did not have consent of the multitude. He believed that the government should help most of the people, not just a few rich people. In addition, the minority rule, in w...
Although they bear some smashing similarities, the difference between Socrates and Thoreau’s arguments are they both believe that humans are only virtuous beings. And that their views on people and the government are divergent. In “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, he wrote an essay in 1849 about the American policies being criticized it argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or impair their consciences, and how the American slavery and Mexican-American war was going on. He argues that the problems were really about changing the government and how it works. He states that he’s just basically washing his hands and refusing to follow any laws followed by the government. Since they strip of their powers from the