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…
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
“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.
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…”
The two main things that Thoreau argues for in “Civil Disobedience” are the idea of a limited government and the individual’s right to resist an unjust government. By following their “Manifest Destiny”, American settlers were ignoring the rights of the land’s original owners and inhabitants. This can be observed in the bloody conflict between America and Mexico, the Mexican-American War, which ended in the annexation of Texas and Mexico losing a lot of its American territory. The war was even more offensive in Thoreau’s eyes because it allowed Texas to be a slave state.
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
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
- 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
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).
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 have 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 to the basis of many important reform movements in the modern society.
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 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).
Henry David Thoreau (1817-1862) was an American philosopher, author, poet, abolitionist, and naturalist. He was famous for his essay, “Civil Disobedience”, and his book, Walden. He believed in individual conscience and nonviolent acts of political resistance to protest unfair laws. Moreover, he valued the importance of observing nature, being individual, and living in a simple life by his own values. His writings later influenced the thoughts of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. In “Civil Disobedience” and Walden, he advocated individual nonviolent resistance to the unjust state and reflected his simple living in the nature.
He contends that people's first obligation is to do what they believe is right and not to follow the law dictated by the majority. When a government is unjust, people should refuse to follow the law and distance themselves from the government in general. A person is not obligated to devote his life to eliminating evils from the world, but he is obligated not to participate in such evils. This includes not being a member of an unjust institution (like the government). Thoreau further argues that the United States fits his criteria for an unjust government, given its support of slavery and its practice of aggressive
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...