More handpicked essays just for you.
Thoreau's views expressed in civil disobedience
Civil disobedience for or against
Essay on civil disobedience henry thoreau
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Thoreau’s civil acts of defiance were revolutionary as he practiced a form of protest that
did not incorporate violence or fear. Thoreau’s initial actions involving the protest of many
governmental issues landed him in jail.
In reality, the government only exists because the people have chosen it to execute their
will and therefore, like anything else, the government’s authority is prone to misuse. One of the
reasons why is that the government bases its actions according to the majority, even if it is
wrong; therefore, civil disobedience is a good way of making a person ultimately responsible for
his own actions, not to the majority of society or to the government.
The majority rule does not always equal rightness. In past history, the idea of a majority
…show more content…
is considered a higher rate of civilization.
However, being a part of the majority does not mean a
person is more superior compared to those in the minority, it only proves that majority ideas are
more accepted by a higher number of people than those of the minority. Thoreau states in his
essay that "a government, in which the majority rules, in all cases cannot be based on justice,
even as far as men understand it" He argues that many of the world's problems come from the
fact that entranced majorities make it impossible for other people to pursue justice as they see it.
The main purpose of civil disobedience is not to create a weaker democracy, but instead
its main goal is to strengthen and build up the values of liberty and respect for the individual.
Another positive aspect of civil disobedience is that most often it is based on nonviolent,
peaceful protests that are only targeted towards the specific injustice at hand.
According to Thoreau’s essay, he states that the only way a country could be truly free is
through civil disobedience, with each citizen having his or her own right and responsibility to
voice their concerns in the name of justice. Thoreau's ideas on civil disobedience are a
reminder that it is important to respect every voice, even when it is small voice. Furthermore, each man should respect his own opinion and not only do what he considers right, but also protest that which he considers wrong. In my opinion, civil disobedience is every man's moral responsibility.
Justice is often misconceived as injustice, and thus some essential matters that require more legal attentions than the others are neglected; ergo, some individuals aim to change that. The principles of civil disobedience, which are advocated in both “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau and “Letter from Birmingham Jail” by Martin Luther King Jr. to the society, is present up to this time in the U.S. for that purpose.
By its use of majority rule, America’s democracy models a collectivist society. Take elections for an example. Although, Americans vote individually, the decision ultimately is based on the country as a whole. The use of majority rule relates to the representation of the ideas of the masses rather than the ideas of the individuals. As expected, there is always a number of people who disagree with the majority's opinions. Disagreement is frowned upon, which Andrew P. Naplitano highlights in his book, It Is Dangerous to Be Right When the Government Is Wrong: The Case for Personal Freedom. Due to America's use of the majority rule, this title often holds true.
Thoreau, Henry. "Civil Disobedience." Elements of Argument: A text and Reader. Ed. Annette T. Rottenberg. 6th ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2000.
Dahl conducted his study on the decision making of the Supreme Court and whether the Court exercised its power of judicial review to counter majority will and protect minority rights or if it used the power to ratify the further preferences of the dominant “national law making majority.” From the results of Dahl’s study he builds numerous arguments throughout his article, “Decision-Making in a Democracy: the Supreme Court as a National Policy-Maker”. In what follows, I will thoroughly point out and explain each of the arguments that Dahl constructs in his article.
In Thoreau’s essay “Resistance to Civil Government”, Henry David Thoreau outlines a utopian society in which each individual would be responsible for governing himself. His opposition to a centralized government is an effort to disassociate with the American government, which at the time was supporting slavery and unjustly invading Mexico. While the individual rule would work well for Thoreau who is a man of conscience, it does not account for the immoral, dishonest or overly ambitious people in the nation.
Thoreau, in his text Civil Disobedience, uses the idea of itemizing the government to help others overcome it. This text truly expresses Thoreau’s ideas as what a government should be and do for the people. One of these ideas is that government is only a resource and what people accomplish is of their own accord. Thoreau states, “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…” (pg. 389, line 8)
In 1992, citizens of South Central Los Angeles started a riot and caused chaos in their neighborhood (Smith 261). Many looted business stores and burned down many properties. The riot was caused by the injustice in the neighborhood. Henry David Thoreau would probably partially support the citizen’s action during the riot. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau mentioned “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable” (para. 8). Thoreau is saying that it is okay to resist and go against the wrongs. However, Thoreau also stated “It is not a man 's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any,
Democratic societies, as they have come to be known and recognized in the 21st century, often operate on the principle of majority rule. The citizens of a nation, often referred to as the “masses” by democracy’s detractors, have final say in the actions of their government. Officials, though duly elected, can be removed at any time provided that a majority of citizens wish it so. This ability is noted by famed philosopher John Locke, who, in his Second Treatise on Government, declared it not only an existing right, but a necessary one. While revolution is often seen as the ultimate culmination of such rights, the exercise of disagreement with one’s government can be seen at much lower levels, up to and include non-violent protests and civil disobedience.
Thoreau, Henry David. "Civil Disobedience" A World of Ideas. Ed. Lee A. Jacobus. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2002. 301-324. Print.
The ability to redefine the ideal of freedom for all races is prevalent in the “character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. For government is an expedient by which men would fain succeed in letting one another alone; and, as has been said, when it is most expedient, the governed are most let alone by it” (Thoreau 636). This signifies that a government that governs least is what is most desired. Thoreau’s argument embodies the belief that to obtain a right or goal, it is necessary to challenge society and the government. Thoreau risked his freedom to protest slavery because as a result of publishing Civil Disobedience and evading the war tax, he was imprisoned. As a literary figure, he based his cause on the notion of freedom of expression. This is apparent in that “to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it” (Thoreau 636). Thus, it is evident that a man such as Thoreau embodies the meaning of a freedom fighter as his shattering words strike society bare and leave them open to change. An opportunity to reform came at last after
Opposition to civil disobedience is doing just that: refusing to acknowledge the problems of others because they are not personally applicable. Resistance of unjust laws by varying people groups is a crucial part of democracy, and it accomplishes two key things: drawing public attention and creating positive environments for those who support the movement.
Peaceful resistance to laws positively impacts free societies. When Henry David Thoreau coined the phrase civil disobedience he sought to better the free world by giving a voice to every single citizen in America. Martin Luther King and Rosa Parks practiced civil disobedience in order to promote social justice. In today’s society civil disobedience is being practiced to advocate for and help the environment.
Throughout history, America was built upon the foundation of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness” (Jefferson.) which was based on John Locke’s idea of individualism and inalienable rights. According to the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson declared “That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness” (Jefferson.) Over the years, the discernments of the American authors like Henry Thoreau have played a role in how Americans have been revolutionary, rebellious, and tolerant people to ensure individualism, freedom, and equality. Merriam-Webster
Civil disobedience has a history of being a positive part of the American pursuit of liberty and freedom. In 1890, the state of Louisiana passed the Separate Car Act, a law
According to Mill, government tyranny is still possible in democracies because its very foundation is susceptible to, “the tyranny of the majority,” (Mill). In this form of tyranny, the voice of some may be silenced or overruled by the collective voice of the majority, or even by those who get themselves to be accepted as the majority. The majority, in this case, will exert their will over those residing in lesser positions of power.