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
The title is an important aspect that should be considered and not misinterpreted. When this essay was first published it was under the title “Resistance to Civil Government”. The resistance in his title is later used as metaphor that compares the government to that of a machine. The machine is producing injustice therefore he says “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out.” He furthers this metaphor by saying “Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.” After the death of Thoreau his essay was retitled “Civil Disobedience”. For the purpose of this essay civil is meant as “relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state”, and therefore civil disobedience stands for “disobedience to the state”.
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
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
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
Although, there’s a lot of people who tend to do this every single day, month, and year. He says that the citizens only follow these laws so that they can be protected by the government. And if they believe in these laws to be not right that they can always have a choice to leave. However, if they found them to be agreeable to be abide by, then they have a duty to be put to punishment. Thoreau on the other hand, basically says that people are wrong in his eyes if they don’t abide by the rules and if they think its injustice. Yet at the same time if you claim to disapprove of it and abide by the rules you would be
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.
Many throughout history shared Thoreau’s opinion, especially those who were on the receiving end of the government’s unjust practices. Thoreau felt that a better government was needed and I would argue, that his words are still relevant today. 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. Only through a changed government, a better government, will the American people experience true
“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
For Thoreau’s arrest to be an act of civil disobedience, it has to be publicized. Being publicized distinguishes his arrest as civil disobedience rather than being criminal (7). Thoreau had many people offering to pay his taxes but refused to take them. His refusal made his arrest publicized enough for someone to pay his taxes to release him from jail. Civil disobedient acts need to be publicized to show the participant is against the political system. Thoreau showed he was against paying taxes by wanting to stay in jail and arguing that he should be the only person to pay his own taxes. This indicates he wanted his disobedience justified.
...are fighting for. When he talks about the evils of slavery, Thoreau states that "When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote. They will then be the only slaves. Only his vote can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote" (226). As a dedicated abolitionist, he believes that only individuals hold the power to end slavery. He thinks that you cannot depend on the government to stop slavery because it thinks as a whole, and not as individuals.
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.
Thoreau regards civil disobedience as duty of his fellow countrymen in order for them to be moral, upstanding Americans. Particularly in the...
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.