Thoreau, Rousseau : The Moral Value Of An Ideal Citizen

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.

Henry David Thoreau wrote Civil Disobedience, which is about him trying to persuade citizens that their obligation is to contravene and correct the unfair laws of the government. Thoreau begins Civil Disobedience with the view point “That government is best which governs least”

In Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, he argues that when civil laws conflict with an individual's morality, the individual should follows his conscience. Thoreau like many Transcendentalists felt a less involved government was best. Thoreau wrote, "That government is best which governs not at all." Obviously, Thoreau realized that he could afford to take this open opinion on government because of the American government. But he felt that government's authority should be limited to physical matters of the country, such as infrastructure and orderliness. He felt a government that become involved in moral matters such as sobriety and slavery was a government over-stepping its boundaries. Ultimately, Thoreau and other transcendentalists felt a utopian society would be the best.

After spending a night in jail, after nonpayment of Massachusetts poll tax, Thoreau wrote his essay “Civil Disobedience”. He states that governments are mostly “inexpedient” (1577), or not practical. At best, Thoreau pushed the idea that the government isn’t useful because it is not our own. He writes “What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army” (1580). Americans listen to the rules established by the government, but it is not necessary, because the government is just the majority of people with whom are living off a different countries rules. The reason the government is even there, is because it gives the citizens some type of stable structure to live by. Thoreau feels that the government is unjust and the citizens of America should not follow rules. He feels like a reform is in need; “It is not a man’s duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous, wrong” and “not to give it practically his support” (1582). Thoreau and Emerson both push for social reform of the individual. Emerson wants the individual to be reliant on themselves, and not fall into the conformity of the American society. Thoreau, also teaches the individual to think different then the governmental established rules. Both authors want the readers to trust themselves, before they trust the

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

“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

Rousseau wanted the state to be a legitimate democracy, a society that united together the people in freedom, equality and civic devotion. Rousseau believed that an individual fulfils his moral potential not in isolation but as part of a community where all members are committed to helping each other. This belief led Rousseau to ancient Greek society for which he felt a great admiration. He believed the Greeks lived in 'organic communities', cities where the citizens set aside personal interests in order to attain the common good. Rousseau's ideal state was one of a smaller size but one where the citizens were welded together in the spirit of 'fraternity'. People would therefore have the opportunity to get know each other, resulting in an enthusiastic contribution to all public affairs. Such a political environment produces free and committed citizens. In contrast, the large modern day states are ruled by an absolute monarch, creating 'servile subjects', which Rousseau despised.8

Rousseau thought that man was born weak and ignorant, but virtuous. It is only when man became sociable that they became wicked. (Cress, 80) Since civil society makes men corrupt, Rousseau advocated “general will”, more precisely the combined wills of each person, to decide public affairs. General will would become the sovereign and thus it would be impossible for its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. Virtue came from the freedom of men to make decisions for the good of the

Jean Jacques Rousseau was a French philosopher who believed that man was born with a pure heart and good intentions; however, society inevitably corrupted man. He believed that any desire to be a good person must be internally initiated from the one seeking it. Once man has immersed himself into society, he allows himself to be persuaded that being good is not the only way of life.

"That government is best which governs least." Or is it? Should the American people be free to rebel against laws they consider unjust? Henry David Thoreau addresses these issues in his essay, Civil Disobedience. Thoreau wholeheartedly accepts the declaration that the government is best which governs least, and would like to see it acted upon. One day, he hopes, we will be able to carry it out to the point where men can have a government that does not govern at all. Government "never of itself furthered any enterprise". He claims that the character of the American people, rather than the government, has kept the country free, settled the west and educated the people. If the government had not interfered, the people would have

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

With this, all peoples are equal and completely free or, to put it more eloquently, “in giving himself to all, each person gives himself to no one” (Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. Basic Political Writings. Hackett Pub. Co., 1987. p. 148). In this respect, Marx and Rousseau share common ground. They both believe that a community or state ruled by all needs to exist to ensure freedom for all. Marx and Rousseau agree that control that comes from above/without/utilizing force can never be rendered legitimate. Likewise to Rousseau, the core of Marx’s notion of freedom is epitomized in this phrase: “Liberty is, therefore, the right to do everything which does not harm others” (C., Tucker, Robert, and Engels, Friedrich. The Marx-Engels Reader, First Edition. New York: W. W. Norton, 1972. p. 40). The break between the two is most noticeable concerning Marx’s central idea that the procurement of the rights of production is the key to freedom. When human beings are estranged from their labor they are estranged from themselves, from each other, and, ultimately, made subjects because of it. Freedom necessarily means that human beings must have the right to produce freely as production is a natural extension of oneself. As we shall see, this problem is only exacerbated by civil society.

In “Self-Reliance” by Ralph Waldo Emerson and “Civil Disobedience” by Henry David Thoreau both authors voiced their opinions on society and what is expected from citizens. Emerson’s essays focuses on the need for individuals to dodge conventionality and false uniformity, and instead follow their own guts and thoughts focusing on one self more. Thoreau’s essay is more focused on patriotism, those who not fully support the rejection of government, but resistance to those laws that he deemed to be unjust or immoral.

In contrast, Rousseau had a generally positive view on human nature though a rather negative view on modern society. He proposed that humans had once been solitary beings and had learned to be political. He believed that human nature was not fixed and was subject to changed. Likewise, he believed that man was good when in a state of nature, but was corrupted by society as shown in his quotation, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” Also differentiating himself from other humanists, Rousseau taught that the sciences and the arts were not beneficial to man. Rousseau believed the general will must always be right and to obey the general will is to be free.