Not Fair To All: The Definition Of Unjustice

He gives the audience a reason to believe him, a person of conscience must choose whether to refuse and disobey the government, or to pay their taxes. “In other words, when a sixth of the population of a nation, which has undertaken to be the refuge of liberty, are slaves, and a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize” (Thoreau ). If the government required people to obey “unjust laws”(Thoreau 373), then people should break the laws even if they wind up in prison. “Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison” (Thoreau ). The laws were meant to be obeyed, but Thoreau believes if the laws should be broken for

He believed that everyone should govern himself. He also believed that "no one should have to ride on the shoulders of the government, but instead rely on himself."(____) He thought people should treat other people the way they wanted to be treated, and follow the natural laws of society. Martin Luther King Jr. believed there should be laws or it would be total anarchy. Thoreau believed that "without the government, every one would naturally treat others as if that person was a neighbor."(____) Thoreau thought that individuals, who were too egotistic and were too easily corrupted, ruled the government. Also, their social thoughts were different as well. Martin Luther King Jr. wanted to change unjust laws, not just for him, but also for his fellow brothers and sisters. He cared about what his people were going through. He had compassion about their suffering and hardship and would not tolerate it any longer. It seems that contrary to Martin Luther King's motives, Thoreau was selfish. He simply did not want to follow a law because it affected him in an adverse way. He was somewhat of a loner, and thought everyone should be independent, instead of acting like parasites, feeding off one another.

In paragraph 26 of “Civil Disobedience,” Thoreau claims the state punishes people who aren’t deserving, therefore all people deserve to be punished. In fact, Thoreau writes, the only place to be true to who you are is in jail. Thoreau thinks that jail is the only place that your opinion matters, as you’re in jail because of an action, and once in jail those same actions are better accepted by your peers. Thoreau adds that it is difficult to fight for what is right if you don’t know what is

Thoreau questions society and essentially the core of its practicality, posing the question: Is the idea of a civil citizen possible without loosing ones’ principles? In his essay he articulates, “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content

Thoreau wrote that people must be willing to go to jail if they want to change a law by disobeying the law. Thoreau went to jail instead of paying for his taxes because he believed the government used the money for unjust things. This is how Henry Thoreau thinks people can change unjust laws. He thought that if people willingly would to go to jail and quit their jobs, then the revolution will take a place and reform will come. Thoreau was willing to go to jail to change unjust laws because of his conscience.

Thoreau and King address the idea of just and unjust laws in their essays. Thoreau writes, “Unjust laws exist; shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them, and obey them until we have succeeded, or shall we transgress them at once? Men generally, under such a government as this, think that they ought to wait until they have persuaded the majority to alter them. They think that, if they should resist, the remedy would be worse than the evil” (Thoreau 7). Thoreau believes that there are just laws and

While in prison, Thoreau’s body was targeted, but according to him, the state never touched him. He said “As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body” (89). Here, Thoreau makes a distinction between a man’s body and his sense. Thoreau believes that a conscience defines a man, not his body. Therefore, though the state attempted to punish Thoreau, it could not influence what actually made him a human.

The main reason so many people have become aware of the unjust system is because of the laws that have been imposed in certain districts. As if the registries are not open to the public, some governments seek more ways to broadcast a person's registry. A judge in a small town of Texas, ruled that sex offenders must post warning signs in the front yard of their homes reading "Danger! Registered Sex Offender Lives Here!" Not only did the judge expect these to be put on their yards but placed on their cars as well. Judge J. Manuel Bañales argued his case because although in Texas the registry is in the newspapers and online he says many people do not look at these. People against Bañales disagreed and said that if the people of the neighborhood

(Thoreau 6). Again, he emphasizes that if the government and the rules put out by the government forces an individual to commit any kind of injustice, then that individual should no longer partake in the

Henry David Thoreau was an American writer and protester, who wrote the influential essay “Civil Disobedience”. In his essay, he advocates for citizens to protest against government actions that they deem unjust and to stand up for one’s rights, putting morals before law,

He also thought that people should do what they believe is right even if that meant going against the authority or the majority. To him, everyone owns their own individual minds, therefore, they should not let society or the government control them. Thoreau’s strong belief in individuality, and doing what is right leads one to wonder what he would think about the death penalty if he were alive today. One could conclude that Thoreau would most likely have disdain for the death penalty by reading his work, Civil Disobedience.

Thoreau believed that we should fight against injustice through non-violence, instead of being neither acquiescent nor using physical violence. “Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine.” This meant that we should stop the government and corporations that had no conscience. He deemed that

The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.

In The Oresteian Trilogy there is a very apparent theme of injustice throughout the plays. Injustice is unlawful or unethical acts that are not treated or punished the correct way. Integrity and fairness are what I believe have the most impact on the way a person will read and react to injustice. Integrity is the ability to be truthful and honorable to a set of morals that each person grows up to believe. Making a decision without having bias towards a side would considered fair. Clarkson, a prestigious school, is still prone to white supremacy. Being able to teach students these values, integrity and fairness, would lead to a stop to the racism in the school. This personally is and will continue to keep me from getting involved in racial incidents and assist in stopping incidents that I see.

In this paper, I am going to argue that living a just life is more worthwhile than living an unjust life. I will do this with evidence provided from the text. The argument in question is why (given the advantages of living an unjust life) would anyone want to live a just life. This very question was a major debate that carried on during most of the text of The Republic of Plato. Throughout the text we see Socrates, Thrasymachus, Adeimantus and Glaucon take on this challenge. They thoroughly go through what they feel is just, and unjust. They also outline the benefits of living both types of ways. They take the various ideals discussed and pick them apart in every which way possible. There is no point of view that is brushed under the rug. After seeing the stance of several of the characters in this book, I see myself siding with Socrates on many levels. This challenge is taken on heavily and incorporated in many of the other concepts discussed within Socrates’ circle.