Comparing Thoreau and Socrates
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.
The reason that Socrates and Thoreau can arrive at such disparate conclusions from essentially the same premise. is that the ancient Greek idea of justice is not on idea of morality or conscience, it is based on honor and shame. All wrongs are reflected back by society (or the "majority"), the reason Socrates does not escape of jail is not because he believes it is wrong, but because he would lose all social status, and be cast out of Athens, never to return. Thoreau believes however that right and wrong do not come from what the "majority" believes to be shameful, but from a sense from within. Thoreau believes that each individual has a moral obligation to decide right from wrong for himself, and to act according to that without regard for law, shame, honor, or punishment.
Neither of these works are a plan for a government. They are both written as a response to the conflict of personal needs with the needs of society as a whole. Socrates lived in a very homogeneous society controlled by land-owning adult men. Women, children and slaves were not involved in government, and not even allowed to leave the city if they wanted.
"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.
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 of the need for a civil protest to the unjust laws created against the slaves and the Mexican-American war.
In the first paragraph Thoreau states “I went to the woods because I wished to live deliberately, to front only the essential facts of life, and see if I could not learn what it had to teach, and not, when I came to die, discover that I had no lived.” Here he is saying that he wanted to live simply, and to go through life knowing that one day, when he does die, he lived his life to the fullest extent possible. “I wanted to live deep and suck out all the marrow of life.” Thoreau wishes to take all that life has to offer him and make the best out of it. He does not wish to die knowing that he didn’t live as much as he could’ve. By ‘suck the marrow out of life’ he means taking all that he can out of life. He feels that by going off on his own into the woods he can have new experiences that will help him figure out his purpose.
This is a reason why most people believe that civil disobedience is bad. Civil disobedience is not dangerous because once someone breaks a law and harms others then it is not civil disobedience. Civil disobedience will be peaceful and will not intentionally harm anyone. Thoreau explained in his essay that he “asked for, not at once no government, but at once a better government.” This shows that in civil disobedience is only used to change government laws for the benefit of the people. Thoreau also says “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterwards.” He believes the law made them subjects and he wanted all men to truly be free, so with civil disobedience he did show he disagreed with the law. With civil disobedience people may show how unjust the laws are because people were being arrested for not
know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my
An influential literary movement in the nineteenth century, transcendentalism placed an emphasis on the wonder of nature and its deep connection to the divine. As the two most prominent figures in the transcendentalist movement, Ralph Waldo Emerson and Henry David Thoreau whole-heartedly embraced these principles. In their essays “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience”, Emerson and Thoreau, respectively, argue for individuality and personal expression in different manners. In “Self-Reliance”, Emerson calls for individuals to speak their minds and resist societal conformity, while in “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau urged Americans to publicly state their opinions in order to improve their own government.
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.
Truth be told there is no real justice in Socrates? ?just city?. Servitude of those within his city is crucial to its function. His citizens are, in every aspect, slaves to the functionality of a city that is not truly their own. True justice can not be achieved through slavery and servitude, that which appears to be justice (and all for the sake of appearances) is all that is achieved. Within Socrates? city there is no room for identity, individuality, equality, or freedom, which are the foundations justice was built upon. These foundations are upheld within a proper democracy. In fact, the closest one can experience justice, on a political level, is through democracy.
People in modern day society should learn from past transcendentalists and engage in the concept of solitude. Henry David Thoreau and Chris McCandless were both transcendentalists that believed in the key fundamental idea of solitude. Henry Thoreau was a transcendentalist that practiced the form of solitude throughout his life. Later in his life, he left society and moved into woods to be alone. Henry David Thoreau wrote a book called, Walden where he recalled important lessons and ideas that his master Ralph Waldo Emerson taught him about transcendentalism. Along with Thoreau, a more modern-day transcendentalist was known as Chris McCandless. McCandless journeyed to the wilderness in Alaska to be able to experience a minimal amount of human
Thoreau wrote "Civil Disobedience" in 1849 after spending a night in the Walden town jail for refusing to pay a poll tax that supported the Mexican War. He recommended passive resistance as a form of tension that could lead to reform of unjust laws practiced by the government. He voiced civil disobedience as "An expression of the individual's liberty to create change" (Thoreau 530). Thoreau felt that the government had established order that resisted reform and change. "Action from principle, the perception and the performance of right, changes things and relations; it is essentially revolutionary" (Thoreau 531).
...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.
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).
Socrates refuses to disobey the law. He believes in the correctness of the cities laws. He believes it is never right to act unjustly. He thinks that if you do not agree with the laws of the area that you are living at, then to leave and go somewhere else. He argues that the government could be seen as “his parents, also those who brought him up,” (Crito, 51e), since he has lived there his entire life and when you live somewhere for so long you should “persuade us or to do what we say,” (Crito, 52a) or leave. Socrates tells Crito that
There has been a long-established controversy over the duty of a citizen in a democracy, on which the Athenian philosopher, Socrates, and the American writer, Henry David Thoreau, had their own thoughts. Both philosophers had varying views on numerous subjects relating to government and conscience. Should the citizen obey all laws, even unjust ones? Or, should they rebel for the sake of doing what is right? Democracy is ruled by the people, for the people. In both Socrates’ time, and Thoreau’s, the question remains on whether this was, in practice, true. The two iconic philosophers’ opinions regarding the duty of the citizen in a democracy, the role of conscience, and the importance of nonviolent resistance, still influence people to this day. Their views augment the understanding people have of the current democracy, how consciences deal with right and wrong, and roles as citizens questioning every issue. Philosophy is often ingrained in the history, politics, and the environment