Civil Disobedience, by Henry David Thoreau

749 Words2 Pages

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.

Open Document