Civil Disobedience Rhetorical Analysis

Thoreau and an Incomplete Remedy for Injustice Throughout “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau provides a number of reasons why individuals have the right to disobey laws contrary to individual conscience. For example, Thoreau explains that the government is not responsible for the triumphs of man (61), that all men recognize the right to revolution when the government is inefficient (63), and that adherence to unjust law separates holiness from the individual (66). Thoreau’s ideal is an aspiring one: that common man can be trusted to break only the laws that violate one’s virtuous conscience, thus resulting in the achievement of a more moral democracy based on the autonomous choices of citizens. Likewise, it is an affront to one’s dignity to blindly

This process is central to the democratic way. Moreover, our laws are the foundation of our societal identity. They grant us individual rights and work towards establishing as close to a utopia as possible. Out of necessity, our system requires citizens to give up some of their rights so that society can prosper. They require citizens to pay taxes. They limit the weapons capacity of the common citizen. And they restrict behavior that the majority of society deems threatening. This sort of agreement mirrors Rousseau’s thinking in his idea of a social contract. A democracy can offer personal freedoms, protection from harm, and equality among people. But in return, the people must obey the laws. Without this symbiotic relationship, not only is the significance of government officials weakened, but also there would be an inability to regulate injustices. The foundation of justice is in its uniformity. If we follow Thoreau’s model of only accepting laws that correspond with one’s individual conscience, then justice has no spine, for individual beliefs vary drastically. For example, we cannot permit murder for one person just because they do not see it as unjust, while the whole of society views it as abhorrent. This is where Thoreau’s idea of civil disobedience becomes less persuasive than Dr. King’s idea. Dr. King, in his “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” advocates for resisting laws that are deemed unjust. But Dr. King’s distinction between just and unjust laws in accordance with the natural order is a central element of his philosophy. It results in organized, determined action toward the creation of a more equitable republic based on morality, thus beginning to solve some of the issues that Thoreau’s ideas prompt. Dangerously, Thoreau’s belief in unchecked disregard for laws can result in a murky definition of