1

Lyazzat Kazybayeva Instructor Penny Citrola Introduction to Critical Issues in the Humanities (2041) 10 October, 2011 Thoreau concludes that if obeying the law makes one complicit with injustice, one should obey ones conscience and not the law. Why does he reach this conclusion, and is he right? Henry David Thoreau has certainly criticized the democracy and its majority rule; therefore, he claims that if civil disobedience damaged democratic establishments, there was no real harm done. However, those people appreciates democracy may ask how compatible civil disobedience is with this system of government. Democracy is eventually about compromise; people accept the majority decision because they think that others will accept their decisions when they are in the majority group, however, Thoreau argues that any compromise on ethical issues is a moral betrayal. He convinces that government's authority is "impure", because in order to be just, authority must be based on the consent of the governed. An individual should never participate in evil, not even if it is the law. Therefore, he encourages people of good conscience to violate unjust laws of the government. However, Thoreau does not fully disobey democracy's rules either: he accepts that by breaking one law he will be punished under another criminal law, and he does not mean that people should go into hiding by resisting arrest and avoid the consequences of their disobedience. Even though most people democratically believe that we should try to change unjust laws but obey until they are changed, Thoreau insists on disobeying the laws at once. The reason for that, government should be based on conscience; citizens should cease associating with an unjust government. He contend that if individual supports the government in any way even by simply respecting its authority as a government then that person is considered as accomplice in injustices forwarded by the government. He dreams of a State that regards the individual wishes and would be totally moral and respectful of the individual. This kind of State would prepare the way for an even more "perfect and glorious State". Democracies reply the desires of the strongest group by answering to the majority, not necessarily the most virtuous or thoughtful group. A government based on this principle cannot act justly. Thoreau argues, "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 afterwards" (178). Because, it is more important to develop a respect for the

right, rather than a respect for law, for people's obligations are to do what is right. On the one hand, many argue that civil obligation should be preserved and government should be obeyed for the sake of expediency. On the other hand, expediency does not take priority over justice; people must do what justice requires regardless of cost, even if it is one's own life. Thoreau writes, "If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself" (181). The people of the United States must stop slavery and the war with Mexico, even if it costs them their existence as a people. The notion of individualism is the one of the strongest topics throughout Thoreau's work. He rejects the view that an individual must sacrifice his values out of loyalty to his government and argues that if a person supports the government in any way - even by simply respecting its authority - then that person is complicit in injustices forwarded by the government. This lays a heavy responsibility on the individual: to compromise, negotiate, or passively accept which betray one's integrity and commit a crime. But, consider how unstable a community would be if it followed this viewpoint: how can a society function if everybody is a "man first and a subject afterwards". It is worth noting, that Thoreau's principle does not mean that it cannot apply to a particular person's actions; indeed not everybody was going to follow his individualistic values. Though, strong sense of individualism and skepticism toward government has served as the foundation for many essential reform movements; they are specifically American values and have allowed America to become a nation of relative freedom. Too much esteem for law leads people to do many unjust things, as war illustrates: the government shapes soldiers into machines and they become a shadow of their humanity. Similarly, most politicians and legislators do not put moral sense first, and those few who do are persecuted as enemies. The question then arises how to behave toward the American government. Thoreau's answer is to avoid totally associating with it and resist if it is unjust. Furthermore, most people believe that revolution against an ineffective or unbearably tyrannical government would not be warranted under current conditions. The enslavement of the South and the invasion of Mexico represent terrible injustices that we must not allow to continue. Consequently, we have not only the right, but indeed the obligation, to rebel. Thoreau says that people should not participate in unfairness but that they do not have to actively contribute a more just world. Here is a moral distinction between failing to preclude unfairness and causing it. For example, Thoreau argues that the United States' invasion of Mexico is amoral and that Americans, supporting the government as soldiers or through taxes are complicit in that unfairness. He would further say that a person should sit in jail rather than be

liable for that invasion. All that can be asked is that person must wash his hands of injustice and each individual should decide for himself how to dispose their lives. A person's primary duty is to be right to him - to follow personal moral goals and act with integrity. Everyone agrees that unjust laws exist. The question is whether we should be content to obey them, whether we should try to change them but obey until they are changed, or whether we should disobey them at once. Most people in a democracy believe that the second course is best and the revolution, if they resist, would be worse than the injustice. However, it is the government's fault that this is the case: it does not encourage reform and dissent. Therefore, citizens should respond to their government's injustices by voting, which is not a proper solution, because it is just "feebly" expressing desire that the right prevail. A wise man of good conscience will not leave justice to the chance of a majority vote which is the simply vote for the sake of expediency. Nowadays, there are no people who vote independently without interaction of their political parties, which shows people's lack of intellect and self-reliance. In conclusion, we can say that Thoreau makes a philosophical point about the ways in which people responsible for harm that befalls others. Most significantly, individuals are responsible for injustices that they participate in. For this reason, Thoreau argues that people have an obligation to disassociate from the government and to not support it either financially or as persons. People have a duty not to cause evil, but they do not have a duty to work against evil that they did not cause. Morality does not require that a person work to bring about a "better" world, rather, a person must simply not make the world any worse. Thoreau suggests that each person should live for himself and take advantage of his short time on earth to follow his own interests and goals and I agree with him. Individuals can very legitimately have concerns that must take priority over improving the world; they should maintain their integrity by staying true to their values. However, exactly for this reason, a person is responsible for the evil that they perform - both directly and indirectly, via tacit support. Thus, there is a special duty not to cause or participate in evil. (1274 words) Reference list Thoreau, Henry David. Civil disobedience. In A world of ideas: Essential readings for college students, 8th ed., ed. Lee A. Jacobus, 172-99. New York: Bedford/St. Martins. 2010. Print.