More handpicked essays just for you.
Positive impact of civil disobedience
Positive impact of civil disobedience
Positive impact of civil disobedience
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Positive impact of civil disobedience
Gandhi Vs. thoreau Gandhi and Thoreau both had injustices their confronted with, they both wanted to protest something their government was doing. They did it in different but alike ways, civil disobedience and nonviolent protest. Both ways got the action they wanted and needed to be able to fix the problem that was displayed. They both wanted the same outcome, a fix of the problem. They knew the way to fix the problem and injustice was to protest the problem. Gandhi also spoke about revolution without hatred or violence. He urged Hindus and Muslims to treat one another kindly “remembering that the same Divine Spirit inhabits whether it is the Hindu body or Muslim body.” On Hindu-Muslim conflict, Gandhi said at a public meeting in Madras,
"There is a higher law than civil law- the law of conscience- and that when these laws are in conflict, it is a citizen's duty to obey the voice of God within rather than that of the civil authority without," (Harding 207). As Harding described in his brief explanation of Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, there are some instances in which it is necessary to disobey a social law. Martin Luther King, Jr., in addition to Thoreau, reasoned that should a civil law be judged unjust, one had a moral obligation not only to himself but also to those around him to disregard that particular law in exchange for a higher one voiced by God.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
Thoreau and Socrates start Civil Disobedience and Crito with basically the same premise. They both believe that humans are essentially moral beings. Thoreau says that people if left to their own ends will act justly, and should be treated accordingly by the law. Socrates says essentially the same thing, he says that "no one wants to commit injustice" for its own sake, many people end up doing so anyway. Socrates says that the citizens of a government have entered into an agreement to abide by its laws in exchange for protection. He also says that if one believes these laws to be unjust, one can always leave, but if one agrees to abide by the laws they have a duty to be subjected to punishment if they break these laws. Thoreau on the other hand says that it is the duty of the people not to abide by a law if they perceive it to be unjust, and if they claim to be opposed to it and nevertheless abide by it, they are a hypocrite.
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.
Justice has different standards for every group that it is presented upon. Thoreau’s opinions and criticism is strongly stated. Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was described as many things. Thoreau was an author and naturalist with very Republican views. Morals inspired him. He ties in morality with justice many times in his piece. He was as well a pacifist, who was more talk than action. He was an abolitionist who sought justice for minorities. They didn’t have the ability to defend themselves.
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.
know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my
While Emerson and Thoreau certainly have difference of opinions, they recognize the need for public discussion and discourse. Emerson declares “a foolish consistency” to be “the hobgoblin of little minds” (Emerson 367). This is shown in their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” in which they support individuality and personal expression. Despite their contrasting views of society and government, the two most prominent transcendentalists in literary history share a passionate belief in the necessity that every American must exercise their constitutional rights and make known their views even and especially if it challenges the status quo.
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.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi
While confined in the Birmingham City Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrote a letter to his followers, more importantly the eight clergymen. Informing them what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was trying to achieve was in the name of peace and would maintain his functions nonviolent for the safety of everyone. Henry David Thoreau wrote his letter describing the reasons why he did not believe in the government. He believed that it was unjust for him to pay taxes, to directly fund the war that the United States was in at the time. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. had much in common with Henry David Thoreau in the sense that men were fighting for equal rights and believed in justice for the people. Yet Dr. King and Mr. Thoreau differentiated from each other in rather simple ways, such as Dr. King was successful with what he intended on doing and Mr. Thoreau was not. In hindsight both men either successful or not, we know them to this day for what they tried doing to help the American people.
After the British empire separated itself from India, inner-country religious problems began to arise. The Muslims and Hindus of the liberated India released their pent up anger on each other and combusted into civil war right after they won the peaceful war against Great Britain. This war distressed Gandhi, who has insight into the unity of mankind, and encouraged him to go on a hunger strike until the brutality ceased. While on his near-death bed, he is approached by a Hindu who “killed a child” because the Muslims “killed [his] son,” and in response, Gandhi said that the way out of his “Hell is to “Find a [Muslim] child, a child whose mother and father have been killed and raise him as your own,” therefore the man would be able to see the equality in all religions. Throughout his entire life, Gandhi, though a Hindu, never prosecuted anyone for their religion and was able to see through everyone’s eyes as fellow brother’s and sisters, not enemies. This ability to empathize and recognize the general unity of the human population allowed Gandhi insight into the human
...goals, they both discuss similar topics of morality and justice under a government’s rule. In hopes of informing and motivating people, Thoreau and King explain how and why these people should take non-violent action towards unjust laws. From each author’s vivid examples and brilliant analogies, we learn the importance of fighting for justice and maintaining morality. Most importantly, Thoreau and King argue in favor of civil disobedience not only to inspire a fight for freedom from the government, but also to ensure that the people’s God given rights and rights to individuality are preserved for generations.
Thoreau believed that when people disobey unjust laws, that will help change the laws to make them just...
Gandhi is motivated by religious means; he believes that everyone is equal in God’s eyes. He gets involved in several movements for equality, and he stresses non-violence very strongly. The Indians are very mad because British rule continues to limit their rights. They are supposed to all get fingerprinted, and their marriage laws are invalid. Gandhi’s followers vow to fight their oppressors to the death, but he discourages them from violence.