Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Thoreau on the duty of civil disobedience analysis
Thoreau on the duty of civil disobedience analysis
Thoreau on the duty of civil disobedience analysis
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Thoreau on the duty of civil disobedience analysis
Outline
Thesis: The Ferguson protestors of 2015 were justified in their assembly and protest; they should not have been suppressed by the police. More specifically, Justin Hansford was wrongfully arrested in 2014 for legally observing a protest which started in a Walmart 10 miles outside of Ferguson.
Protesting is not illegal in the USA
The first Amendment states “Congress shall make no law… prohibiting… the right of the people peacefully to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances”
The government is the USA is not lawfully allowed to deny citizens the right to come together and verbally denote their disagreement with the government and its laws. Its a given right that citizens of the USA are able to speak up
…show more content…
While the Bill of Rights outlines Americans citizen born rights, Thoreau talked about the need for American citizens to act on their judgment. A responsibility they have to protecting their rights and ultimately using those rights to bring light to situations were the government allows for wrongdoing; in hopes that the wrongdoing can be corrected before more damage can be done. Furthermore Thoreau delves into the rights given to Americans and they impact Americans can make when they exercise those rights they have been …show more content…
This is something that is heavily touched upon in Civil Disobedience.
While the police may have attempted to stop protesting Thoreau states that this is a normal occurrence when a society attempted to ignore the wants of the government. “Men- serve the state with their conscience also, and so necessarily rests it for the most part; and they are commonly treated as enemies by it” (3). He gives light to the notion that revolting and sending unrest when you are unhappy with your government can often bring you negative light.
Regardless of consequence, Thoreau talks in Civil Disobedience about the importance of acting on your right to revolution. “All men recognize the right of resolution; that is, the right to refuse allegiance to, and to resist, the government, when its tyranny or its inefficiency are great and unendurable” (4) he goes on to state that “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority”
Throughout a series of books, and now movies known as Divergent they hit a lot of points as to what is believed as a “good society”. In the series, Divergent all must conform and fall into a certain category Dauntless, Abnegation, Erudite, Candor, or Amity . If one fails to do so, and falls into all of the categories they are known as “Divergent," and must be killed for failing to conform to traditional society standards and rules. This relates to Civil Disobedience by Henry David Thoreau, because he talks about humans not needing a form of structure set by a hierarchy, such as a government. A good society according to Thoreau, is one with little to no government involvement, one that respects laws to a certain extent, and one that follows
In Henry Thoreau’s essay, Resistance to Civil Government, the harmless actions he takes to rebel against the government are considered acts of civil disobedience. He talks about how the government acts wrongful such as, slavery and the Mexican-American war. This writing persuades Nathaniel Heatwole, a twenty-year-old college student studying at Guildford College in Greensboro, North Carolina, to take matters into his own hands, by smuggling illegal items on multiple Southwest airplanes. The reason in that being, is to show the people that our nation is unsafe and dangerous. In doing this, he takes his rebellion one step too far, by not only jeopardizing his life, but as well as many other innocent lives.
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.
...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.
Mahatma Gandhi, a prominent leader in the independence movement of India once said, “Civil disobedience becomes a sacred duty when the state becomes lawless and corrupt.”(brainyquotes.com) Gandhi states that protest and civil disobedience are necessary when the authority becomes unscrupulous. This correlates to “Declaration of Independence,” by Thomas Jefferson; “Civil Disobedience,” by Henry David Thoreau; and “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” by Martin Luther King Jr., because all three leaders felt that civil disobedience was important to help protest against an unjust ruling. Jefferson stood up to the injustice of the king by writing the Declaration of Independence and urged others to stand up for the independence of America. Thoreau exemplified
The title is an important aspect that should be considered and not misinterpreted. When this essay was first published it was under the title “Resistance to Civil Government”. The resistance in his title is later used as metaphor that compares the government to that of a machine. The machine is producing injustice therefore he says “If the injustice is part of the necessary friction of the machine of government, let it go, let it go; perchance it will wear smooth — certainly the machine will wear out.” He furthers this metaphor by saying “Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.” After the death of Thoreau his essay was retitled “Civil Disobedience”. For the purpose of this essay civil is meant as “relating to citizens and their interrelations with one another or with the state”, and therefore civil disobedience stands for “disobedience to the state”.
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.
Although they bear some smashing similarities, the difference between Socrates and Thoreau’s arguments are they both believe that humans are only virtuous beings. And that their views on people and the government are divergent. In “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau, he wrote an essay in 1849 about the American policies being criticized it argues that people should not permit governments to overrule or impair their consciences, and how the American slavery and Mexican-American war was going on. He argues that the problems were really about changing the government and how it works. He states that he’s just basically washing his hands and refusing to follow any laws followed by the government. Since they strip of their powers from the
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).
There are times throughout the history of the United States when its citizens have felt the need to revolt against the government. Two such cases occurred during the time of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau. Both men courageously confronted the mighty us government; both spent time in jail as a result of their defiant actions; both men stood for a belief in a better future, and both presented their dreams through non-violent protest and civil disobedience. The similarities in their course of action are undeniable, but each man used different terms on which they based their arguments. Martin Luther King Junior's appeal through the human conscience, and Henry Thoreau's excellent use of patriotism, present similar issues in very dissimilar ways.
Civil Disobedience occurs when an individual or group of people are in violation of the law rather than a refusal of the system as a whole. There is evidence of civil disobedience dating back to the era after Jesus was born. Jesus followers broke the laws that went against their faith. An example of this is in Acts 4:19-20,”God told the church to preach the gospel, so they defied orders to keep quiet about Jesus,” In my opinion civil disobedience will always be needed in the world. The ability to identify with yourself and knowing right from wrong helps to explain my opinion. Often in society when civil
... people have an absolute right to voice their opinions and protest as long as it is done without trampling upon the legal rights of others. However, when any one, or group, attempts to violate the legal rights of others the government not only has the duty but has the Constitutional responsibility to intervene
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
This includes the need to prioritize one's conscience over the dictates of laws, based on the principle by Thoreau that we men should be first, and subjects afterwards. People have an important duty to refuse a government that is corrupt, and distance themselves from these unjust institutions.
The hallmarks of freedom can stay a part of our democracy if the state governments don’t pass any laws that fully take away or excessively restrict rights granted by the Bill of Rights and if the people find alternative ways to exercise their rights without breaking any laws established by the federal government, specifically the Supreme Court and Congress. In “We the People: An Introduction to American Government” by Thomas Patterson, it is stated that “…individuals do not have the right to hold a public rally at a busy intersection… or the right to turn up the volume on loudspeakers …where they can be heard miles away.” (p.102). This law only takes away one specific situation where people can protest, but the people can still find other ways