In Henry David Thoreau's essay “Civil Disobedience”, he analyzes the people’s relationship to the state and focuses on why individuals follow governmental policies and laws even when they believe it to be unfair. He mentions his view of “the state” and with his classification of citizens as those who serve the state with their “bodies”, those who serve it with their “heads”, and those who serve it with their “consciences”. As I see it, everything he says is very accurate if you look at it objectively. Firstly, he compares man to humanoid machines who serve the state with complete allegiance with their bodies. He is saying just as machines which otherwise resemble humans would not deserve respect, so individuals that mindlessly serve the state …show more content…
do not deserve respect as well. Thoreau argues that these men are the soldiers, jailers and other laborers to the government, who sacrifice their bodies and hard labor to serve the state. This group of workers uses no critical thinking or sense of morality in choose to do the work given by the government. When Thoreau discussing the classification of citizens, he states that “most legislators, politicians, lawyers, ministers, and office-holders, serve the state chiefly with their heads; and, as they rarely make any moral distinctions” (Thoreau 374).
In other words, statesmen, legislators, politicians or any part of the machinery of state government are unable to doubt or question the government that give them their power and title. He claims they serve with their head, meaning they lack any morals to improve the state and damage it. Although Thoreau sees the worth of their contribution to the nation, he sees them doing anything that would benefit themselves then caring of the welfare of the people outside of the government. When looking at what he said, I can agree since it is known statistically that the members of congress are much wealthier than the average American with their inflated salary. According to one source, it mentions that “in 2012, the Center for Responsive Politics found that the median congressman was worth more than one million dollars” (Gordon, “Members of Congress”). Maybe people make a stereotype of politicians as liars or devils since they are known to prefer to improve their own lives over others, forgetting (or ignoring) their moral principles. This can be done through bribes for making or not making certain decisions, or insider trading for financial advantages. What Thoreau said about these kinds of people long ago still applies to today, and it is something many people like me can agree
with. He also mentions there are a lesser number of people that serve the state with their ‘conscious’, meaning they typically don’t follow society’s unjust rules because they know it can be improved or is immoral. They may treated as the ‘enemies’ of society because of it and be looked down upon by others. Thoreau claims that many people will not protest against the government and that only a few minority will argue against the rule, strongly believing it was the responsibility of the knowledgeable minority to stand up and fight. When he mentions this group, he describes them as progressive individuals who only want to improve the lives of others, not just theirs. Thoreau emphasizes the very few in society who use their consciences openly object to unjust rules made by the society, which is apparent when looking in our country’s past. He implies that a wise person who questions authority for the benefit of the public while sacrificing a part of his life is a true hero. The best patriots seek to make the pledge of allegiance come true, getting liberty and justice for all.This is still not true, although great strides have been made. Count the years slavery existed in this country, the years women could not vote, the years blacks were not allowed to vote, or even use restrooms, the years gays could not wed. How many years has this country existed before those rights existed?
“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.
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).
To conclude, Thoreau believed that people should be ruled by conscience and that people should fight against injustice through non-violence according to “Civil Disobedience.” Besides, he believed that we should simplify our lives and take some time to learn our essence in the nature. Moreover, he deemed that tradition and money were unimportant as he demonstrated in his book, Walden. I suggested that people should learn from Thoreau to live deliberately and spend more time to go to the nature instead of watching television, playing computer games, and among other things, such that we could discover who we were and be endeavored to build foundations on our dreams.
As I've studied Henry David Thoreau's essay "Resistance to Civil Government," I've identified the persuasive elements and analyzed a specific portion of the text to create my own argument. In this essay, I will discuss the strengths and weaknesses found throughout both responses through the lens of persuasive analysis in order to prove my ability to utilize rhetorical strategies.
...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…”
Many throughout history shared Thoreau’s opinion, especially those who were on the receiving end of the government’s unjust practices. Thoreau felt that a better government was needed and I would argue, that his words are still relevant today. There is always room for the government to improve. Thoreau wanted a government that didn’t just look to the interests of the powerful majority, one in which individuals with consciences lead, instead of a collective power making decisions for the individuals. The people have the right to resist a government that isn’t serving them properly or is treating them unjustly, or is using their funding for immoral causes; in fact, it is the people’s duty to do so, for only through civil disobedience can the people simulate change. Only through a changed government, a better government, will the American people experience true
In his essay, “Resistance to Civil Government,” often times dubbed, “Civil Disobedience,” Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) argues against abiding by one’s State, in protest to the unjust laws within its government. Among many things, Thoreau was an American author, poet, and philosopher. He was a firm believer in the idea of civil disobedience, the act of refusing to obey certain laws of a government that are felt to be unjust. He opposed the laws regarding slavery, and did not support the Mexican-American war, believing it to be a tactic by the Southerners to spread slavery to the Southwest. To show his lack of support for the American government, he refused to pay his taxes.
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.
Would everyone like to see how the community is affected ? The community and neighborhood is facing some major consequences. According to “Excerpts Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau described how this one person refused to pay the taxes to the government he decides to say something but his saying resulted to him being sent to prison for trying to stand up to the government. The government has not been telling us the actual issues . Based on the excerpt from the “Civil Disobedience” there are exactly three main points to the story. The first main idea is the people have been using their own ideas to try to get a way to end the government way for all of us to live because we need to see the point for all of us to live a life in
- When he 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," he is saying that it's more important to develop a respect for the right, rather than the law law, because our obligations as people are to do what is right
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
In this short story Thoreau plays the protagonist as well as a pacifist. He continually reiterates his beliefs of law and conscience. Thoreau believes we have a conscience to determine right and wrong and views the government, at a state level at least, as useless. He gives the reader several examples of things the government does that would be against most conscious decisions. Such as: The listing of accomplishments the “government” made possible, included in this list is the repetition of the word “It” referring to the government. “It does not keep the country free. It does not settle the West. It does not educate. The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished”(221).
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.
In a government the majority rule and justice for one person has no value when it comes to the whole. Bartleby is fighting against a world that is ran with the philosophy that, “humans are creatures of material causation rather than psychic motivation, bundles of conditioned reflexes whose conduct, although inaccessible to reason or persuasion, can be manipulated and managed through the adjustment of environmental or physiological circumstances” (Walser, 314). As long as the control of the majority lies in the hand of the government justice will elude the minority. Thoreau’s essay On the Duty of Civil Disobedience states the following:
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...