The Pros And Cons Of Civil Disobedience

In Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience, he is writing to the American people. He is trying to spark a desire for change, for people to oppose their government without actions. He uses this work to criticize the American institution of slavery as well as the Mexican-American War. Thoreau is attempting to convey the importance of listening to one’s conscience over the laws, believing that it is more important to do what they feel is right rather than listen to the laws given by the majority. Thoreau feels that people should protest against their government, but not using violent actions. He is trying to persuade the people to voice their opinions and break the chain of majority rule. Thoreau is writing during the time of the war between the United States and Mexico, which took place between 1846 and 1848. He writes to oppose the government’s actions and policies during this time period. He refused to pay a tax that would support the war and was imprisoned for a day. Thoreau uses ethos, logos, and pathos to persuade his audience to agree with his view of the American government and to voice their oppositions.

He compares the government to a machine and says that if the machine “…requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law. Let your life be a counter friction to stop the machine.” Standing against what he considers to be unjust acts of the government, slavery and war, he protests in a way that is according to his point of view. I see a correspondence between Thoreau’s call for independence of thought to the call that the colonies did for independence from a King that was unjust to them. Moreover, the title itself Civil Disobedience, is a straightforward appeal to behave this way. I am a true believer in democracy as the best system to grant a voice to most people, however, like Thoreau, I believe that one cannot support a government that acts against what is right, he says “ 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?” Thoreau notes that democracy may not be the final stage in the process, and at the end of the essay he emphasises that there will never be a "really free and enlightened State" until the state recognizes the pre-eminence of the

There are many civil disobedient that have shown impatience with the process of democracy. The Bill of Rights provides many opportunities for demonstrations to stimulate sentiment, to dramatize issues, and to cause change. These rights are subject to limitations of time and place so as to secure the rights of others. Also, the demonstrations must not be disguised as a right because it defeats its purpose. As the civil disobedient violates a law, and voluntarily submits to its sanctions, he breaches the law but not the peace. To indulge civil disobedience is to bring on anarchy, and the permissive arbitrariness of anarchy is less tolerable than the repressive arbitrariness of tyranny. Too often the license of liberty is followed by the loss of liberty. The disobedient act of conscience doesn’t enhance democracy; it gradually destroys democracy. The non-violent acts of disobedience will give rise to more civil riot. Van Dusen said, even the noblest act of civil disobedience assaults the rule of law. Although limited to method, motive and objective, it has the effect of inducing others to engage in different forms of law breaking characterized by methods unsanctioned and condemned by classic theories of law violation. Once the civil disobedient disobeys one law, he repeatedly subverts all

This time period is in the 1800’s. Civil disobedience is the refusal to comply with certain laws or to pay taxes and fines, as a peaceful form of political protest. Henry David Thoreau believes that violence is not the answer to any solution. He thinks that if you carry out things in a peaceful way you will get what you want more often than being destructive. He wants people to stand up for what is right because in the 1800’s people rights were a problem. Women didn’t have much rights then. Blacks didn’t have much rights then. The only people that had rights were rich white men. So it is important to stand up for what you believe and be peaceful about it so the government will have to be active and fix the problem because the government is

How does the social responsibility of intellectuals to demonstrate civil disobedience differ from Lincoln and MLK’s time and today as demonstrated by Black lives matter and Antifa

The ideas of nonviolent protests were not only around during the 18th century, but in the 20th century was well. The words of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mohandas Gandhi, two reformers of the 20th century, were heavily influenced by Civil Disobedience. The motives of Martin Luther King Jr’s Letter from Birmingham City Jail and Gandhi’s On Nonviolent Resistance were similar to Thoreau. All three men were tackling injustices within their time period, and believed that civil

The United States of America was founded with the remarkable purpose of unifying a multitude of states-homes to citizens all of cultures and beliefs-whom shared a similar goal of creating a life of freedom and prosperity. In order to secure structure and solidity within an entire nation, it has always been extremely vital to maintain a regulatory government with a strong constitution to represent its citizens as a whole. However, the government can often represent the character of the American man in a way which misinterprets his very intentions. When morals and ethics are found to be void within our governmental institution, and it then becomes a “corporation without conscious”, civil disobedience can be the vital key in awakening human emotions

"Civil Disobedience" is one of Henry David Thoreau's most famous essays. One of the major problems most critics see with this essay deals with Thoreau's seemingly contradictory statements about society from the beginning to the end. Barry Wood, a well-known critical writer, attributes this change in beliefs to the enlightenment of Thoreau in jail. While I agree with Wood that Thoreau does achieve a form of enlightenment, I will show that Thoreau's views regarding the society he lived in never actually changed throughout the essay: the only aspect of the essay that changed was Thoreau's means of attacking his society. Thoreau uses his enlightened state to shift from an overt, blatant form of attack to a more subtle, psychological one.

Civil Disobedience Henry David Thoreau’s influential paper, Civil Disobedience, represents the idea of the right to not follow an unjust law, as shown by the hundred years of American protest in response to these laws. When Thoreau penned the document, it was a tumultuous time in both his life and America’s. At this time, the United States was at war with Mexico, the aptly named Mexican-American war. The conflict was mainly about land, primarily california, which was President James K. Polk wanted to add to the union. However, the war was also about slavery.

This essay is an effort to explain my thoughts on Henry Thoreau paper, “On the Duty of Civil Disobedience”. From my understanding, the main point, and some sub-points, of Mr. Thoreau’s paper are how the government isn’t doing its job and how citizens are just letting it happen, some of the governmental policies that he opposed and offended him were the permission for slavery in the south and its entrance into the Mexican war. As a method of protest and to get his opinions known, he didn’t pay his taxes for six years and was put in jail for one night on the account. Thoreau’s opinion about the “duty” of a citizen or an American, was that they shouldn’t allow the government to overrule or weaken their consciences by giving it so much power, also that they have the power to avoid participating in the injustice of that government.

In the United States Constitution we the people were given a right to freedom of speech. People have taken to this right given to us by the Founding Fathers. But, one problem rises to the top with a right that has so much freedom, civil disobedience. It’s a topic that we are seeing more of in our society today. Civil disobedience is a threat against our free society due to people not taking our laws serious enough.

The relationship between government and citizen is one much contested throughout history. Which is best: oligarchy, anarchy, democracy, or autocracy? When considering America’s government, the Founding Fathers instituted a republic. The rule of law is the cornerstone of a republic. However, due to mankind’s selfish nature, policymakers will inevitably pass unjust legislation. Thus, a republic’s welfare does not rely on absolute obedience to just and unjust laws alike. Rather, it permits civil disobedience, defined as the act of opposing a law one considers unjust and peacefully disobeying it while accepting the consequences. Some people, however, disagree, believing that civil disobedience does not allow for a stable society.

“Civil Disobedience” was first published in 1849, Thoreau argued that governments shouldn’t be allowed to weaken the conscious of citizens. As slavery was during the Mexican- American was in 1846.Thoreau gave a lecture entitled “The Rights and Duties of the Individual relationship to the Government”. This lecture was the prelude to “Civil Disobedience” which was originally “Resistance to Civil Government” Thoreau changed the title so that his audience would know the difference between his views and the views of the anarcho-pacifists. Thoreau used the term ‘resistance’ to not only compare the government to a machine but to also influence his audience to put a stop to the machine. In his opinion the government was more damaging than supportive and that there wasn’t any justifying the Democracy was in place to give the people more of a voice wasn’t even justified.

The act of violating the laws and authority of the state is justified only when the measures taken by the state are contrary to the morals, ethics, and public opinion of the governed. On the occasion that truly “unjust” rule is forced upon a citizenry, violating that authority can be validated. The factors which contribute to an unjust governance are the states’ adherence to common morality, the power structure of the government, how closely it follows the public will, and the ethical consideration taken by the power. Civil disobedience, however, must be exercised cautiously and with extreme restraint, because if the private individual has the power to neglect the law due to personal interest, the society will deteriorate into chaos. Although Sophocles’ Antigone and Plato’s Crito do not exhibit a shared interpretation of when it is justified to disobey the state, considering both pieces will strengthen an understanding of when it is appropriate to practice a degree of law breaking.

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,