The Collision of Ones Conscience and Human Law

From the start of man fighting for freedom or his beliefs, the question has consistently been whether a person can wage a battle using words rather than actions. The notion of civil disobedience would seem to be an inept weapon against political inequity; history, however, has persistently proven it to be the most dynamic weapon of the individual. By refusing to pay his taxes and subsequently being imprisoned, Henry David Thoreau demonstrated this very defiance. Thoreau’s Resistance to Civil Government conveys the effectiveness of the individual conscience, renounces hypocrisy, and cultivates a sense of urgency where inaction creates a moral conflict. This path of responsibility paved by Thoreau gave our leaders of today the means they

In a paragraph, summarize the analogy in Thoreau’s discussion of “unjust laws” on p. 378. What, according to Thoreau, should a good man do? Cite the related page.

According Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he mentions that to require civil disobedience, the circumstances must be like America’s. Circumstances like practicing war, deriving power from the people, having unjust laws, and supporting slavery. Thoreau writes, “must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislation?” (Thoreau ). He mentions how no man should be subdued to any government or institution, especially if it portrays unjust. Therefore he also implies that if a law exhibits unjust, the population should not follow the law with the knowledge of the consequence. Similarly, Thoreau establishes, “when . . . 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 ). He explains how it expresses the duty of Americans to rebel and use civil disobedience, it is not just a right, but it drives Americans to be aware of and completely use for the advantage of society. Thoreau further explains the unlawful government by stating, “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which the slave's government also,” (Thoreau ). He describes the circumstance of America as a prejudiced institution, which rightfully allows citizens to use their duty of civil disobedience. A government should require unjust laws, slavery, aggressive law, and strength over intelligence to cause civil disobedience. However, civil disobedience a citizen’s duty and they must maintain it.

Each person is in control of their actions in life. Although conscience may make each individuals actions seem honorable, the truth is they might be.

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 is making a point that a new moral law is being established when following ones’ intuition. He suggests that, “He will put some things behind, will pass an invisible boundary; new, universal, and more liberal laws will begin to establish themselves around and within him; or the old laws be expanded and interpreted in his favor in more liberal sense, and he will live with the license of a high order of beings.” This quote means that when man continues to pursue their free will to follow the path that is intended for them based on their intuition, it will push more societal boundaries and create new moral laws. These moral laws are concerned with ideals of equality and humanitarian reforms. Therefore, when man has pushed the boundaries to create these moral laws, they eventually work out for man.

“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? (Thoreau 184).” The choice of acting upon unjust laws is up to the person whether they want to follow with what they believe is morally right no matter the consequences. Thoreau, for example, was arrested for not paying poll taxes for six years. Thoreau peacefully served his time in his night in jail, having known beforehand the consequences for his actions, yet he went along and committed the crime. Even though the crime Thoreau committed didn’t harm anyone, it made a general statement to what he stood for, that government cannot change his beliefs and make him follow laws that are unjust to him. “When I meet a government which says to me, "Your money or your life," why should I be in haste to give it my money? It may be in a great strait, and not know what to do: I cannot help that. It must help itself; do as I do. It is not worth the while to snivel about it. I am not responsible for the successful working of the machinery of society.(Thoreau

In his famous essay, “Letter from Birmingham Jail,’’ Martin Luther King, Jr. cites conscience as a guide to obeying just laws and defying unjust laws. In the same way, Henry David Thoreau wrote in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience,” that people should do what their conscience tells them and not obey unjust laws. The positions of the two writers are very close; they use a common theme of conscience, and they use a similar rhetorical appeal of ethos.

Have you ever felt a rule you had to follow was unjust? Have you ever felt your moral instinct tell you not to follow it? Prominent figures in American history, Martin Luther King Jr. and Henry David Thoreau, felt this way and decided to not follow the rules imposed on them by indulging in “civil disobedience”. Civil disobedience is the act of peacefully disobeying laws or customs with the purpose of combating moral injustice. This form of protest has proven to be quite effective in making change in history. In “Civil Disobedience” and the “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”, both Thoreau and King Jr. write their justification for their actions as well as their feelings regarding the particular disputed

Henry David Thoreau, the author of Civil Disobedience, utilized a variety of metaphors that relate to the relationship between an individual and state. Throughout the essay, Thoreau described what the function of a government should be and the role of an individual in that perticular system of state. Thoreau illustrated the government as a machine that is continuously operating under the operator, which represents the people. As a result of this comparison, Thoreau also included the friction that comes alongside a machine. Thoreau stated that “All machines have friction” and “But when the friction comes to have its machines, and oppression and robbery are organized, I say, let us not have such a machine any longer” (Thoreau 3). The friction Thoreau mentioned in the essay symbolizes the government at work, which are the laws enforced. Thoreau believed that every government possessed certain forms of friction in their society, whether the state had injustice or not. Friction thus symbolized the laws that were established by the state, and in some situations enforced on the individual. Thoreau continued to express how he felt about the friction of a machine and when the machine became unnecessary. If one were to become “Then agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law”, this statement detailed that one can justifiably break the law if he or she rightfully accepts the consequences (Thoreau 6). Thoreau believed that one could break the law if injustice was

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,

Are we naturally moral creatures? Do we always act towards the common good of others? I am positive that we do not, and in fact, as much as society wants to, we go against our morals and lead with our ‘feelings’. These feelings may feel right, but it doesn’t mean they will lead you in the right path to fulfil your ultimate end, true happiness. Hitler was a passionate man driven by feelings, but what he felt and did during the World War Two era was not for the sake of the common good, and was not morally right. In today’s society we often struggle between what is legally right and what is

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

Our interactions within the law and society may be described as acts of legal consciousness. The term 'legal consciousness' is used to describe an understanding of the law, society, and ones place within. This awareness is informed by, and informs our societal interaction at both a group and individual level. It is my strong belief, that through critical reflection of our legal consciousness, we are empowered with the ability to influence and analyze the role of law and its effectiveness within society. Legal consciousness is both a form of scrutiny and a device of law. It is the basis for the formation of opinions on some of the more difficult ethical or moral questions posed, such as; abortion and euthanasia.

Since we were kids and became conscious of our surrounding, our parents and grandparents instilled in us an awareness of what is right and wrong. In other words, it is a trait of all human beings and fosters from our desire to get along with each other to live a harmonious life. Laws are a set of rules and behaviors set by governments that society illustrate on what people can or cannot do. The purpose of this paper is three-fold: it will identify and define what distinguishes law from ethics and what similarities they share. The second is an analysis of examples of where law and ethics either meet or diverge. Third is the role where law and ethics either meet or diverge.