Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thoreau's View of Life
Thoreau’s philosophy
Henry David Thoreau essay
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Because man has the power too impact change, and the responsibility to act on injustice, both King and Thoreau awaken the country’s awareness on the the indispensability of civil disobedience, even though their reasons for immediate action differ. In many ways Thoreau and King’s thoughts were identical. Thoreau protested that the nation abuse the responsibility to act on injustice, and so did King. Both unraveling their thoughts and emotions with letters, expressing the nation's need for change. These historical agitators knew that man has the power to impact change, and took action. Although their values were similar, their motives were different. King wrote his letter as a reply to his fellow clergymen whom, were conserved with his actions.
Henry Thoreau The fact that men have the power too impact change is not an astonishment. Extensive evidence of evolution have been scatter thought out history. They are commonly read in textbooks, newspapers, and magazines. Martin Luther King Jr. was a great extremist who changed history, with his actions and words. “The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation” (para.12, pg 264) Impatient, he was when it came to the growth for this country. His passion to change what society cried ordinary and customary, fabricated a new way of life. King’s dream was for equal treatment for all Americans. He disobeyed the decisions of the Supreme Court because their laws were unjust. The letters he wrote to his fellow clergymen, revealed what he thought about the situation the country faced. King cleverly used a variety of pathos, logos and ethos that crfate the es Like King, Thoreau addresses the issue of the inactivity of the nation. He did not agree with the Mexican-American war, thought it was unnecessary
Though Henry David Thoreau lived more than one hundred years before the time of Martin Luther King Jr., his philosophy lingered in the minds of many individuals. Thoreau was opposed to injustice in general and refused to support or to follow the unjust laws. His idealism and anarchism influenced the thinking of King. Douglass' narrative shows how his thinking would have been similar to that of Thoreau's.
The idea of challenging an unreasonable law is central to both King, Jr.'s and Thoreau's plights, though each have very distinct characteristics unique to themselves. In King, Jr.'s case, he saw segregation and racial discrimination as mistakes on the part of the government and he set out to make substantial changes to the status quo. In doing so, he acted upon Thoreau's concept that every person retains the right to judge civil laws for decency and credibility. "One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (Birmingham Jail 82). Should one find the law to be in the best interest of each individual as well as society as a whole, he should abide by it and make every effort to live by its standard. But reversely, should the law be found guilty of evil intentions and causing more harm than good, it is the duty of every person under that law to disregard it and make an attempt "to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support," (Disobedience 6).
History has encountered many different individuals whom have each impacted the 21 in one way or another; two important men whom have revolted against the government in order to achieve justice are Henry David Thoreau and Martin Luther King Jr. Both men impacted numerous individuals with their powerful words, their words carried the ability to inspire both men and women to do right by their morality and not follow unjust laws. “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience” by David Henry Thoreau along with King’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail”, allow the audience to understand what it means to protest for what is moral.
Comparing Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience and Martin Luther King's Letter From a Birmingham Jail. The two essays, "Civil Disobedience," by Henry David Thoreau, and "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," by Martin Luther King, Jr., effectively illustrate the authors' opinions of justice. Each author has his main point; Thoreau, in dealing with justice as it relates to government, asks for "not at once no government, but at once a better government. King contends that "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
King and Thoreau?s approach to civil disobedience is a more civilized way to protest than those at the WTO. King in his letter of response to the Birmingham clergy, ?Letter from Birmingham Jail? he list four basics steps to a non-violent campaign: collection of the facts to determine if injustice exist; negotiation; self-purification; and direct action (174). In his letter he points out that the individuals involved in the campaign attended a series of workshops on nonviolence. During the workshops individuals were to ask themselves if they were able to accept blows without retaliating and if they could endure the ordeal of jail (174). Thoreau?s approach is slightly different at an individual level but yet was nonviolent. He refused to pay his poll tax, which he felt was unjust. The result was he was arrested and jailed. He applied a type of civil disobedience without eliciting violence.
on ways to be civil but disobedient, they have opposite ways of convicing you. Dr.
...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.
When you look at today’s government, it is viewed that everyone will be treated equally and decisions will be made in the best interest of the people. But when thinking about the government of the past, one must ask if these same views were expressed by the people of that time? Did everyone fill that they were apart of a just system? According to Frederick Douglass and Henry David Thoreau the answer to that question is no. The government was unjust because so many followed the wrong doings of the law rather than doing what was right, subjected African Americans to harsher punishments
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.
The ideas of King are very similar to the ideas of Thoreau. Moreover, the “Letter from Birmingham Jail” shows that King, read the writings of many famous people. From these two reasons, King had probably read “Civil Disobedience” as an important document regarding justice and injustice. Therefore, the positions of the two writers are very close, and they cite conscience as a guide to obeying just laws.
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.
know it by experience, and be able to give a true account of it in my
Both Thoreau and Emerson argue that asserting one’s opinions is crucial to attaining a better society. Emerson decries the danger of societal conformity and challenges the reader to “speak what you think now in hard words” in order to remedy it (Emerson 367). Likewise, Thoreau speculates that if “every man make known what kind of government would command his respect” it would be “one step toward obtaining it” (Thoreau 381). With these remarkably similar statements, both transcendentalists appeal to the reader’s patriotism by using language evocative of the agitated and outraged colonial Americans who demanded the people’s voice be heard in government. Although published roughly a half century later, “Self-Reliance” and “Civil Disobedience” mirror the sentiments of famous Revolution-era leaders such as Thomas Paine and Patrick Henry.
Comparing the Civil Disobedience of Martin Luther King Jr., Henry David Thoreau, and Mohandas Gandhi. From the onset of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has always been whether one person can make a difference using words rather than wars. Philosophically, the concept of civil disobedience would appear to be an ineffective weapon against political injustice; history however has proven it to repeatedly be one of the most powerful weapons of the common man. Martin Luther King Jr. looked at the way African Americans were treated in the United States and saw an increase in inequality.
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.