More handpicked essays just for you.
Comments And Questions About Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau
Henry david thoreau individualism in society
Comments And Questions About Civil Disobedience By Henry David Thoreau
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
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 espouses that the democratic party listens to and answers the majority, which are the desires of the most powerful group. The problem with this is that the most virtuous or thoughtful group is left aside because the government only pays attention to what the strongest group says. A government functioning on this principle cannot be based on justice, because the ideas of what is right and wrong is decided by the majority, not by conscience. Thoreau writes, "Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think we should be men first, and subjects afterward. (p.178 para. 4)" He claims that it is more important for people to develop a respect for the right, instead of having a respect for the law, for it is people’s duty to do what is right.
The notion of individualism is extremely important in exercising the duty people have to cease from the...
... middle of paper ...
...ven in these circumstances, such as during the Mexican-American War, these soldiers are considered good citizens who fought for their country. This is similar to how lawmakers and politicians also do not value their moral sense first, because if they base their statecraft on morality, they could be considered traitors for not thinking of the greatest advantage and benefits of their own country first at all times.
In conclusion, the notion of individualism and skepticism toward the government is essential in the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society. This includes the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws, based on the that principle by Thoreau that we men should be first, and subjects afterwards. People have tan important duty refuse a government that is corrupt, and distance themselves from these unjust institutions.
“All machines have their friction―and possibly this does enough good to counterbalance the evil… But when the friction comes to have its machine… I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 8). In Henry David Thoreau’s essay “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience,” the author compares government to a machine, and its friction to inequity. He believes that when injustice overcomes a nation, it is time for that nation’s government to end. Thoreau is ashamed of his government, and says that civil disobedience can fight the system that is bringing his country down. Alas, his philosophy is defective: he does not identify the benefits of organized government, and fails to recognize the danger of a country without it. When looked into, Thoreau’s contempt for the government does not justify his argument against organized democracy.
...ni and Steinbeck draw attention to the diminishing power of an individual in a large society. By using motifs and settings, the authors explain the ability the world has to influence humans’ behaviors and lives negatively. Hosseini convinces us to remain individuals, as Steinbeck professed, and not conform to the world in which we live. As Dahli Lamma once stated, “The ultimate authority must always rest with the individual's own reason and critical analysis”. Is he correct: is it necessary for humans to make individual decisions rather than follow the in the footsteps of others?
Absorption in civic involvement, from the point of view Thoreau gives us, dimin-ishes the independent self and therefore diminishes the ability to think for oneself, which is necessary for the use of the full range of moral judgment. Moral judg-ment, in turn, is essential for true service to civil society. Paradoxically, only those who resist the state serve it with their con-sciences, and only those who hold them-selves apart from civic cooperation can improve the political order. Thoreau’s case for political disengagement foretells the dis-tinction that David Riesman would make in the middle of the twentieth century between “inner-directed” and “other-directed” types of social personalities, probably because Riesman unconsciously drew on that same tradition of American individualism, which has not been a mere cultural lag but a voice in the ongoing dia-logue of American political thought. The ideas and decisions of the “other-directed” type come from social expectations and demands, while principled introspection guides the “inner-directed.” (P.11)
...for him to do). Instead Thoreau believes that as unjust and imperfect as democracy is at that particular time, he looks to better times, a time when legislators have more wisdom and integrity and hold humanity in a higher regard. He recognizes that fairness exists in the hearts and minds of individuals, some whom he knows personally and he holds to a hope that men like these can and will transform what is in their conscience into a “state at last which can afford to be just to all men and to treat the individual with respect…”
In a democracy, people choose representatives to lead and govern. However, these representatives might take unpopular steps. In such instances, the people may show their disapproval of a policy and vent their grievances through acts of civil disobedience. Henry Thoreau said, “It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.” It is both the right and responsibility of a person to fight an unjust law, and civil disobedience allows one to convey his thoughts and ideas in a passive, nonviolent way.
Once a man has the reason, the method, and the courage to act against the injustices, the reform will happen spontaneously. This reform happens spontaneously at an appropriate time, and it cannot be forced or suppressed. Both the reformers and authorities have to realize that the reform begins with individuals and cannot be controlled by the general. The individual should not blindly follow others but reform on his own behalf. Thoreau explicitly mentioned this idea in his essay, claiming that the individual is powerless while compromising the majority. He wrote: “A minority is powerless while it conforms to the majority; it is not even a minority then; but it is irresistible when it clogs by its whole weight.” (Thoreau 845). The first two phrases state that the individual should not conform. If the minority compromises, follows the majority’s command, and accepts the majority’s value, that minority is cultivated by the majority and becomes a part of the majority. That is why Thoreau called compromised minority is not even a “minority”. The first two phrases are for the reformers, telling the reformers not to give up to the majority; the last phrase is for the authorities, warning them of the irresistible nature of the reform. The last phrase describes what is going to happen once the individual starts to reform. Despite the fact that the majority can cultivate the minority, the minority can also resist the majority once it put in all the effort. Similarly, Dr. King sent his letter to tell the moderates that the reform will eventually take place. Dr. King wrote this in his letter:
Henry David Thoreau in his essay “Civil Disobedience” Thoreau asserts that men should react from their conscience. Thoreau believed it was the duty of a person to defy the law if his conscience says that the law is unjust. He believed this even if the law was made by a democratic action. Thoreau
1. What conclusion can be drawn regarding the quote, “Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient”?
By the year 1840 the concept of Independence had been forever embedded in American tradition and American government. The value of freedom had yet to be accepted nor granted peacefully. The Revolution released America from the grasp of Britain and it would take yet another war to release the black man from the shackles of slavery. America was still in its infancy; the West was not yet settled, the South was still a confederacy and unity was just a dream. The country was torn by slavery. And some men began to question the integrity of their government. Henry David Thoreau was one such man.
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).
Natural philosophers of every century of human existence have asked what we owe to each other, society or government. In The Origin of Civil Society, Jean-Jacques Rousseau argued that the only natural form of duty is to one’s family, and all other obligations are based on agreement (57). Henry David Thoreau, in 1849, wrote in Resistance to Civil Government (sometimes known as Civil Disobedience), “it is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support” (143). This sort of conflict, which has accompanied all men at the great changes in society, is what drives conflict in Herman Melville’s Bartleby, the Scrivener. Melville, like the Byzantine architects, crafts a work of art that studies a microcosm of the macrocosm. That is to say, by looking at the relationship between two people, Melville is able to explore the larger context around them, specifically the radical change of society in the mid-19th century. Like Thoreau, Bartleby’s famous word, “I would prefer not to,” send a shockwave through contemporary expectations and give rise to how a person approaches a situation. Bartleby and Thoreau are both transcendentalists, and look to return to a Rousseauian state of nature. They have both arrived there after a journey of self-examination – most definitely in Thoreau’s case, and most probably in Bartleby’s – and their non-conformist attitudes raise questions of what is expected of people with regard to their duty to society and each other. Bartleby in particular makes the nameless...
Thoreau believes that men should have the right to chose what kind of government they would like to be ruled by and that would gain their respect. Thoreau uses both tone and diction not only to explain and express his belief but also to teach us why it is important for every man to make the decision of their own kind of government. Thoreau says, " A standing army is only an arm of of the standing government." This quote is implying that all men are still part of the government whether they claim that they are not part of the government. However, Thoreau also
Individualism in today’s society is the “belief that each person is unique, special, and a ‘basic unit of nature’.” The individualism concept puts an “emphasis on individual initiative” where people act independently of others and use self-motivation to prosper. The individualists “value privacy” over community the individual thrives to move ahead in life (U S Values).
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
In "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau criticizes the American government for its democratic nature, namely, the idea of majority ruling. Like earlier transcendentalists, such as Ralph Waldo Emerson, Thoreau believes in the importance of the individual. In a society where there are many individuals with conflicting perceptions and beliefs, Emerson chooses passivity and isolation to avoid conflict with others. However, unlike Emerson, Thoreau rejects passivity and challenges his readers to stand up against the government that focuses on majorities over individuals. Thoreau argues that when power is in the hands of the people, the majority rules, "not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest" (Thoreau 64). Thoreau portrays this very fundamental element of democracy, w...