The struggle for civil governance has been the most challenging aspect in several governments across the globe with the urge for better governance becoming a hotly contested subject internationally. Indeed, political leaders have always been questioned about their leadership nature as human beings have gradually become more politically informed than in the earlier days.
Democracy in civil governance has been arguably the most anticipated issue in the contemporary world with few leaders managing to employ democratic philosophies in their leadership. Perchance, the most tantalizing thought is Thoreaus idea of civil disobedience. I do not like the idea of civil disobedience.
Civil or national disobedience can simply refer to the contravention of certain regulations, laws/orders, or even government commands that are responsible for governing a given nation. Thoreaus idea of resistance to civil governance resulted from slavery predicaments that existed in England during the 1800 century.
The principle argument of Thoreau is that civilians should not consent governments to overrule their sense of right and wrong or simply ideologies. According to Thoreau, governments seem more corrupted than people can imagine, and thus inhabitants should not allow the government to take precedence over their principles since they use governance to manipulate civilians. Therefore, individuals have civil liberties to protect their individual dignity central to law and governance.
Having a deeper insight into the arguments brought out by Thoreau, the common sense behind leadership and national governance is to have a single voice that leads a multitude of civilians. Truly, the contemporary world has regularly faced leadership crises with cases of civil wars and human suffering becoming largely eminent.
However, the overriding reason is; should civilians follow Thoreaus opinion of resistance to civil governance and contravene important laws? Sensibly, I disagree. The question is how can one manage to disregard laws and what is the importance after all? Thoreaubrings a commonsensical idea, but the nature of the reality behind it remains a controversy as most civilians who tried to attempt its application languish in dungeons for claiming their sovereignty.
The government is normally the most superior commander, and the notion behind confrontation of civil governance does not seem appealing to true nationalists and patriots who should base their defense against governance manipulation through more decent approaches. Every government across the world has its own rules and regulations that allow smooth civil governance.
A true nationalist or compatriot must believe in democratic national governance and must remain loyal and respect the rules and regulations governing a nation. Perhaps two important things that one must reason through are that laws govern multitudes of people who might have different opinions on prevailing governance. Secondly, it is much easier to subjugate an individual authoritarian leader through democracy than living in a nation without policies.
Conclusively, following the resistance to civil governance, the idea by Thoreau amounts to riding in darkness. Despite the fact that having loyal and trustworthy leaders who play no impunity in the entire globe is a mere dream, respect to laws and regulation means true patriotism. As the advocacy to have pure leaders remains a sticky conception amongst us, it is normally important to understand than headship crisis remains a human nature and errors do not mean total failure.
Laws abide nationhood among individuals and empower people to struggle to do the right. Laws are what makes a nation remain united and are definite weapons to criminals. From my opinion, following Thoreaus idea may spoil civil governance beyond plastic repair.
The present day society has uncalculated into us that being obedient is good while being disobedient is very bad. Our social institutions have taught us that we have to obey people in every order or command that has been issued out to us without any question. Even without being told, people have to be obedient to the rules, laws and guidelines that have been set out by social institutions to ensure that there is peace and harmony in the society. This goes without saying that obedience is a human behavior that has been deeply ingrained within us. It has become an impulsive behavior that goes beyond being emphatic and sympathetic.
Social beings are prone to being obedient to a higher authority that makes them feel protected and secure. They therefore cannot make any mistakes or be disobedient to these authorities as they make the most vital decisions. These higher authorities include the government, law enforcement agencies and social institutions such as churches, schools and medical facilities. All these institutions are guided by moral, ethical and legal guidelines that ensure their practices have been followed and maintained within the society. Social beings are therefore expected to obey these guidelines to ensure their well beings have bee met adequately by these institutions.
The thesis statement for this research paper will be The courage to be disobedient at times is what makes us fully human, with a strong and confident personality . The thesis statement basically supports the notion that disobedience in social beings makes them stronger and more confident when faces life challenges. Most social proponents might argue against this statement by saying that being disobedient does not only make a person to be confident or stronger but it also fosters an attitude of negativity and disobedience.
They might also argue that disobedience creates an environment of hostility and rebellion within the society. Such proponents of social behavior argue for obedience when it comes to maintain a positive social equilibrium within the society. The research paper will therefore look at the aspect of obedience as well as of disobedience in social beings. The three arguments that will be raised in the research paper include; obedience is good and disobedience is bad, disobedience is good as it helps mould a humans personality and obedience is bad to a human beings development.
Definition of Obedience and Disobedience
To better understand the concept of disobedience and obedience a definition of each is required. The term obedience refers to the act of performing commands or orders issued by other people. Obedience is part of human behavior and part of the norms and guidelines that make up the social fabric of the society.
Stanley Milgram conducted experiments and research into obedience with particular focus on how the Nazis were able to get ordinary German citizens to participate in the Holocaust that saw millions of Jews being murdered in concentration camps. He focused on how ordinary citizens were obedient in the presence of authoritative figures or social institutions. The results of his research work showed that obedience was normal and people who disobeyed were viewed to be abnormal within the society (Passini and Morselli 97).
The various forms of obedience that exist within the society include obedience to God and religious beliefs, obedience to social norms and cultural practices, obedience to governments and other social institutions such as churches, schools, and medical institutions, obedience to self imposed constraints and obedience to country laws (Milgram 64). Disobedience on the other hand is the refusal or failure to obey. It is basically the opposite act of obeying where an individual does not follow the set out guidelines or laws.
An individual might decide to disobey certain rules or certain orders given by a person in authority. Such an act has been described by social researchers to be an act of rebellion and non-compliance. People who disobey do so deliberately to break certain laws or to go against a certain authoritative figure. They also disobey to show that they do not cooperative with the authorities. Disobedience is therefore seen as a negative act that affects the institutions in the society (Passini and Morselli 100).
Arguments for Obedience and Disobedience
To explain the first argument where obedience is good and disobedience is bad, human beings follow rules so as not to against the law or against the rules. People are prone to obey because it offers them a sense of security and protection. People are not allowed to make any mistakes because the major social institutions and authoritative figures make the important decisions for us. Presidents make important decisions for their countries while the citizens get to exercise obedience to the decisions that have been made. Regardless of what kind of behavior is involved, obedience can be justifiable as long as the individuals follow orders and commands (Asch 31).
Obedience in the society provides a sense of order and continuity which is important. Social institutions around the world create laws and guidelines that are used in maintaining order and peace. Laws are made for various reasons and some of the most important reasons for following laws is to demonstrate obedience. Obeying laws ensures that there is no trouble in the society and it shows that people agree with the set out laws and are ready to defend them. Obeying laws also ensures that order is maintained in the society preventing cases where the rule of the jungle prevails (Asch 31).
The concept of obedience is at times difficult given the complex nature of human behavior which is difficult to control. This creates a situation where some people are prone to being disobedient or vulnerable to disobedience. While some people readily obey, others decide to disobey regardless of whether they have the opportunity to act independently.
To demonstrate this statement, most of the offenses that are committed within the society are usually done by ordinary people instead of social outcasts. These people decide to disobey under the impacts of surrounding circumstances and authoritative figures. They also disobey because the set out laws might at times contradict their belief and value systems. Ordinary people also disobey because of the pressure to conform to values that at times might not be right (Behrens and Rosen 304).
Disobedience also stems from the feeling of performing other peoples wishes rather than our own. This makes individuals to no longer feel responsible for their actions as their decisions are made by authoritative figures or people who have authority over social beings within the society. Such a situation forces people within the social context to feel responsible to the authoritative figures creating a need to constantly perform well out of duty or obligation to these authorities. Value systems and beliefs are at times compromised when this happens (Behrens and Rosen 304).
The human psychology prevents people from resisting orders or commands. Human beings are mostly wired to obey therefore making obedience to be a normal state. Obedience has become a historically accepted norm where a society requires each of its members to follow the established rules and guidelines.
Obedience is mostly focused on an authoritative figure that influences the norms and rules within social institutions. Authoritative figures create and regulate norms and rules that are used within the society and in return they require social members to follow these rules without any question. For example governments around the world create laws that require all citizens to obey. This is important as it ensures there is no disorder present in the society. Obedience has therefore been viewed to be a fundamental component in maintaining order within the society (Behrens and Rosen 304).
The next argument to be focused on will be disobedience is good as it builds an individuals personality and confidence. As explained before, society requires every social being to be obedient. But in some instances, obedience causes more harm than good as exemplified by the Holocaust where German citizens betrayed Jews to the Nazis.
Milgram explains the role of obedience during the Holocaust where ordinary people agreed to obey an authoritative figure which was the Nazi to the extent of severely hurting other ordinary human beings. Milgrams explanation of the Holocaust points to the fact that disobedience is not always wrong. Some Germans during the Holocaust disobeyed the Nazis by harboring and protecting Jews an act that spared their lives (Milgram 64).
According to Fromm (2) the first act of disobedience in the world was committed by Adam and Eve. The two disobeyed Gods command by eating fruit from the Garden after God had forbidden them. Human history was therefore founded by an act of disobedience because of Adam and Eve. This act of disobedience affected the development of man in the world as obedience and disobedience co-existed together in the world.
This especially became true as more and more people continued to rebel against authoritative figures who were charged with developing their worlds. Fromm (2) also highlights the stealing of the fire by Prometheus as an act of disobedience. As much as it laid the foundation for human evolution, Prometheus act of disobedience set the stage for human history and it put him on the historic map for his crime.
The intellectual development of human beings has mostly been dependent on acts of disobedience. This disobedience arises from authoritative figures trying to stifle the thoughts and expressions of their subjects as well their long established opinions and thoughts that govern social institutions and members. Disobedience has also arisen from the pressure to conform or comply with these laws that might at times contradict the individuals set of beliefs and values (Fromm 2).
Fromm further analyzes the act of disobedience by looking at various historic events that took place in the course of the century. Such occurrences such as the Garden of Eden and Prometheus formed the basis for the evolution of man. Acts of disobedience over the past would not have formed the foundation of the world today. Human history began with an act of disobedience when Adam and Eve defyed God by consumeing the prohibited fruit. This according to Fromm (2) was seen to be an act of freedom and independence from the authoritative figure of God.
Fromm relates disobedience with obedience by stating that an act of obedience to one principle might at times lead to an act of disobedience on the same principle. In the social context, human beings are faced with disobedience when performing their moral duties. When trying to obey some human principles, other laws have to be broken.
When the principles that had to be obeyed conflicted with those that had to be disobeyed, an irreconcilable situation arose. For example people using a zebra crossing might back up traffic which might be wrong, in some other cases people who water their gardens during the drought season might be doing so to keep the city green but they might be wasting valuable water resources that have become scarce during the dry season (Fromm 3).
Antigone was a perfect example of explaining the act of obeying one principle and disobeying another. She was faced with the dilemma of obeying a law that was deemed to be too inhumane which meant that she had to disobey the laws of humanity. Therefore an act of obeying one principle would be an act of disobeying another. Fromm advocates that people within the society should be free from any laws or rules established by authoritative figures or social institutions as they were born to be free and independent.
He states that people should be able to disobey as well as to obey without having to resort to rebellion. Fromm advocates for the proper balancing of the two concepts according to what individuals feel is right to obey or disobey. He uses an example of martyrs in either the religious or science circles who at one point had to disobey people that wanted to stop them following their own consciences (Fromm 3).
In coming up with the proper balance, Fromm analyzes the concept of obedience by looking at two types of obedience which include autonomous obedience and heteronomous obedience. Heteronomous obedience is the kind of obedience that is given to a person, an institution of power or an authoritative figure. Fromm describes this kind of obedience to be submissive in nature as it implies that an individual should abandon their own perceptions of what is right and accept the foreign perceptions of a higher authoritative figure in place of their own.
It is the kind of obedience that responds to outside thoughts and power. Autonomous obedience is the kind of obedience that is used by individuals who believe in their own religious, personal and political beliefs and convictions. Individuals who practice autonomous obedience exercise their own judgment and follow their own perceptions rather than those of other people. Fromm describes this kind of obedience to be the ability of an individual to judge for themselves (Fromm 4).
In describing how acts of disobedience develop people psychologically, Fromm states that acts of disobedience provide an individual with freedom and the ability to withstand oppression. Disobedience also enables an individual to voice their opinions and concerns against any societal or authoritative pressures. Fromm suggested that choice and the ability to be disobedient were two indivisible concepts that had to go hand in hand. For an individual to be free from societal norms and pressures, they had to be disobedient. This did not mean that defiance was a virtue and obedience was a vice, as a highlight like that would take no notice of the relationship that existed between the two concepts (Fromm 3).
In analyzing the third argument that states that obedience is bad, historical events such as the Holocaust come into mind. Innocent Jews were killed as a result of ordinary Germans obeying Nazi orders. This brought into contrast the fact that societys committed human rights abuses in the name of being obedient. Ordinary German citizens were forced to commit inhuman acts against the Jews that they would ordinarily have not committed under normal circumstances. While some German citizens stood up and disobeyed Nazi orders to identify Jewish hideouts, others acted as Nazi spies by informing the officers where the Jews were hidden (Milgram 64).
Milgrams analysis of German behavior during the mass murders of Jews during the Holocaust showed that peoples behavior changed drastically when they were faced with military conflicts. They tended to obey to avoid being involved in the conflicts that mostly led to the death of people who were disobedient. Such obedience created some forms of aggression amongst the social members who were under oppression. The results of Milgrams research experiment revealed that people tended to obey authoritative figures and it was deemed to be abnormal for a person to disobey these authoritative figures. This created a dangerous situation where obedient people had to fulfill the commands of authority that were deemed to be illegal or criminal in nature (Passini and Morselli 100).
People who obey authoritative figures do so to fulfill the orders of these figures so that they can benefit from carrying out those orders and at the same time prevent the occurrence of conflicts within the society. Obedience at times becomes a very powerful tool that can make ordinary people commit acts that are deemed legal by authoritative figures. Cullingworth (262) discusses the aspect of blind obedience which is deemed to be more negative than positive.
Blind obedience dehumanizes people by making them act in an unimaginable way. Cullingworth further notes that blind obedience has a range of negative effects that might include death, fear, insecurity, and inconvenience. An example of blind obedience was the terrorist attack of September 11th where suicide bombers attacked the World Trade Centre in the US based on their obedience to religious beliefs and values (Cullingworth 262). In summary obedience has been used for the purpose which at times has led to the devastation and loss of innocent lives.
Conclusion
The various arguments presented in the research paper have shown that obedience and disobedience can be both positive and negative concepts. On one hand obedience ensures that there is order in the society while disobedience demonstrates rebellion to the norms and guidelines that are used to govern the society. On the other hand disobedience ensures that a person has the freedom to do whatever they want based on their own perceptions and beliefs while obedience prevents people from being free and openly expressing their concerns, views and opinions without any fear of reprisals or condemnation.
In support of the thesis statement where the courage to be disobedient is what makes us fully human, strong and confident, disobedience has been noted by several authors in the research work to be positive in the intellectual development of human beings. Disobedience allows people to develop their freedom by voicing their concerns on aspects that are deemed to be detrimental to the society. It also allows for people to base their decisions on their own perceptions of what is good and what is bad. Disobedience is therefore seen to be important in developing a persons intellectual capacity and perceptions.
Works Cited
Asch, Solomon. Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193 (31-35), 1955. Print.
Behrens, Laurence and Rosen, Leonard. Writing and reading across the curriculum, 10th Edition. New York: Longman Prentice Hall, 2008. Print.
Cullingworth, Nick. Btec national public service. Cheltenham. UK: Nelson Thomes Limited, 2004. Print.
Fromm, Erich. Disobedience as a psychological and moral problem. New York: Routledge Inc., 2005. Print.
Milgram, Stanley. The perils of obedience. Harpers Magazine, 62-77, 1973.
Passini, Stefano and Morselli, Davide. Authority relationships between obedience and disobedience. New Ideas in Psychology, 27 (96 -106), 2009.
The argument of self-reliance versus civil disobedience has been the most significant controversy in many countries. There are many ways for human beings to learn the truth. According to Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau, following ones intuition is best needed, especially when they are up against conformity to society. Emerson and Thoreau also highlight the significance of nature and its connection with humans. Both authors investigate self-reliance and civil disobedience topics but from different perspectives. Ralph Emerson contrasts it as the perfect City of God to the City of Men or Society in his essays Nature and Divine School Address. They claim that people can no longer see nature and that their bonds with one another have weakened significantly. The main argument in both their articles was how humans neglect to use their intuition and conform to society, which motivates the government to control them.
Discussion
The two works, Emersons Self-reliance and Thoreaus Civil Disobedience, differ in genre. For example, Ralph Emersons Nature is composed in a speculative essay. The author wishes to be as objective as possible, so he frequently uses the personal pronoun we. The use of personal pronouns characterizes the articles point of view, which motivates the readers (Emerson 8). It promotes Ralphs belief that nature and humanity are connected by reflecting on his experiences. It should be noted, however, that we can also refer to humanity or society since it represents a significant number of people (Green 198). In this regard, one might conclude that Emersons use of we demonstrates his desire to maintain objectivity.
Another critical comparison to consider is how these authors perceive nature. Emerson, for example, associates nature with God, writing, Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign& We return to reason and faith in these woods (Emerson 188). Furthermore, he regards nature as a living being capable of responding to a person. This response, according to him, is determined by the persons mental state or spirit. He says that nature only assimilates the colors of an individuals heart (Green 198). According to Emerson, people should only see themselves as an indistinguishable component of nature or a particle of God (Green 211). The author believes that an individual can be enlightened and free through nature. The essential focus he wants to communicate is that for God, and thus for nature, all people are equal, regardless of social status.
Emerson expands on this idea in his Divinity School Address, stating that the rules established in societal structure refute the laws of God. He claims that an individual can assess the moral standards or moral depravity of ones actions through intuition, which should serve as a guide to human behavior (Emerson 222). The main concern is that individuals frequently disregard it in favor of external laws. Furthermore, Emerson claims that the church misinterpreted Jesus Christs main ideas; his precepts are only declared, yet they are not followed (Green 201). In his opinion, these qualities can be acquired via nature; this concept is expressed in his book Walden. According to Ralph Emerson, nature is a representation that individuals ought to follow.
Henry Thoreau does not see nature as a metaphor for God but believes it is an animate being. For example, he emphasizes capitalizing Nature herself throughout the text (Lombard 154). The author wishes to demonstrate that people should not be scared of tranquility because it allows them to reconnect with nature. he says that he has never found a more companionable companion than nature (Green 235). He contends that a person can still feel lonely even amongst other people. Thoreau says that he is a monarch of the survey, and it is his right to explore nature that no one can dispute. Thoreau believes that only nature can bring people true joy.
It is wise to consider these writers works together as their ideologies only complement each other, especially when it comes to intuition and self-sufficiency. Self-sufficiency implies the capacity to make independent choices (Green 200). Furthermore, Ralph Emerson and Henry Thoreau contend that nature is alive. As a result, rather than discussing these authors works separately, it is wise to examine them from the perspective of transcendentalism (Green 221). The main difference is that Emerson explores nature mainly about human society; he holds that individuals ought to follow their gut feelings, which is the most natural way (Green 222). Unlike him, Thoreau does not make comparisons between nature and society; instead, the author rejects these notions; for him, nature is a means of becoming independent of other people.
Emerson and Thoreau assert individualism and personal expression in various ways in their essays Self-Reliance and Civil Disobedience. Emerson urges individuals to voice their opinions and resist societal conformity in Self-Reliance (Emerson 64). Thoreau urged Americans to publicly express their views in Civil Disobedience to enhance their government (Lombard 196). The perception of how people could form government and society differs significantly between Emersons and Thoreaus philosophies as articulated in Self-Reliance and Civil Disobedience. Emerson believes that a person ought only to follow his conscience and intellect, not the opinions of others (Emerson 112). Emerson contends that it is feasible to defy societys everyday habits and beliefs and to be understood in the community.
Social responsibility is essential in Emersons Self-Reliance. The implication is that there comes a point in an individuals life when they realize that they have a reason, a fate, and the obligation to achieve their goals if they can tap into their spiritual nature. Emerson says that the most muscular man in the world is the one who stands alone (Green 200)). He refers to the belief in individualism and trust in ones intuition. Emerson observes that famous men and women are commonly misunderstood merely because of their viewpoints, ideas, and thoughts; however, they are revered precisely because of these misconceptions. One central point in Self-Reliance is that people should not comply with society but rather be self-sufficient.
Thoreaus Civil Disobedience shares the same philosophical ideas as Self-Reliance. Social responsibility is frequently emphasized and used to define how all individuals are obligated to bring justice to those in need. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau meets a prison inmate who has been imprisoned for torching a barn. Nonetheless, Thoreau sees his roommate as honorable simply by trusting his intuition (Green 199). Furthermore, Thoreau writes that the government is the best which governs least, based on the idea that people should not correspond to society but rather operate independently and accept their perceptions, objectives, virtues, and moral standards.
Self-Reliance and Civil Disobedience are both relevant in contemporary society since they prevent conformity, a significant issue in todays world. Humans are inclined to side with the majority, but they should be imparted to stand their ground (Lombard 113). Both essays discuss the government and the issues it faces (Green 199). The government has not improved since they were written; it may have deteriorated. Government is best when it governs the least this viewpoint should still be applied to todays system. The government now attempts to regulate every aspect of everyones life, but, as Thoreau suggests, it should allow its individuals to choose on significant issues.
Thoreau claimed that individuals should disobey laws enacted by the government deemed unjust to each individual. He, therefore, states that he would not wish to be regarded as a member of any society he had not joined (Lombard 121). He attempted to explain how he would not take part in things he did not believe were right in his heart, so he chose not to pay the tax and was imprisoned. He disobeys the government because he believes paying taxes is wrong and does not want to be a part of the government. It is also tied to somewhat Emerson said. He urges people to trust their minds and know that every action they take from their intuition is with great consequence (Green 197). Therefore, they should be able to decide how they want to be governed and not let the government lead them astray.
The two authors, Emerson and Thoreau, complement each others work. Therefore, it is difficult to determine which of the two authors has the more effective message. Emerson mainly discusses it in terms of divinity, believing it to be Gods masterpiece, whereas Thoreau mostly talks about the concept of spiritual solitude (Green 134). Nature, he claims, fills the void inside that society cannot. Nonetheless, Emersons ideas appear to have far-reaching implications since he notes that mans rules, and even those of the Christian church, frequently refute the primary law of nature, love.
Conclusion
In conclusion, intuition works best because only people can tell what is best for them. Intuition gives people the confidence they need to ensure democracy in the government. This is because individualism leads to the projection of independent ideas, which overrules the fear of being misunderstood. Therefore, intuition promotes the moral objectives of the people as they hold up their ideologies, beliefs, and ethical standards.
Work Cited
Emerson, Ralph Waldo. Self-reliance. Lulu. com, 2019.
Green, Jeffrey Edward. Self-reliance without self-satisfaction: Emerson, Thoreau, Dylan and the problem of inaction. Philosophy & Social Criticism 47.2 (2021): 196224.
Lombard, David. Henry David Thoreau: Civil Disobedience. (2021).
Gandhi, the great humanitarian world has ever seen, had his ideologies and principles regarding freedom and war. His teachings, based on truth, non-violence, and Satyagraha are relevant even in the present world. Satyagraha was the most effective weapon used by Gandhi during his lifetime to fight morally against the British and the whites of South Africa to attain freedom. Gandhi has proved before the world that Satyagraha is the noblest form of revolution that could win even great battles without bloodshed. His concept of Satyagraha was focused on the different concepts like love, truth, non-violence, non-stealing, chastity or Brahmacharya, poverty or non-possession, bread labor, fearlessness, control of the palate (asvada), tolerance, Swadeshi, and removal of untouchability, and never did he like to call it as only a passive resistance . Gandhi proposed some principles for the members of the Satyagraha and insisted that these principles must be followed to achieve the desired effect.
The principles of Satyagraha never supported any form of violence and it was a war without violence. It never encouraged anger and insisted that the volunteer should not retaliate against the opponent but should pardon him. The main feature of the Satyagraha volunteer was that he learns to control his natural passions which often lead him to all the calamities. When Gandhi anticipated the principle of Satyagraha, he thought that its main object should be to wipe out the evil or to reform the opponent.
Henry David Thoreaus concept of civil disobedience is somewhat similar to Gandhis principles of Satyagraha. Both Gandhi and Thoreau were united in the case of slavery and they strongly opposed it by tooth and nail. Thoreau, like Gandhi, believed in the principles of self-reliance, personal integrity, and spontaneous intuition. He also promoted the spiritual energy that lies within every human being. Thoreau advocated simplicity, interdependence, magnanimity, and trust in his principle. The main goal of civil disobedience was to call attention to an unjust public law that tries to suppress the people physically and mentally. The volunteers of the civil disobedience protested against injustice within the framework of obedience. Thoreau, like Gandhi, encouraged people to love each other. Through this civil disobedience, the followers tried to appeal to the majoritys sense of injustice and forced them to reconsider and change their public policy. Thoreau began his civil disobedience by refusing to pay the poll tax as a protest against slavery. It was like the Satyagraha movement of Gandhi, based on non-violence. Thoreau strongly opposed the unjust laws and thought that they require their action to work properly. The followers of civil disobedience had the belief that if the abolitionists withdrew support of the government, then there will be a peaceful victory for the revolutionaries.
Gandhi exhorted his people to be courageous and insisted that only through strength and discipline they can achieve the aim. If there is no unity in living things, things will be topsy-turvy. His concept of Satyagraha was deep-rooted in the soil of truth and the word Satyagraha itself means clinging to the truth .
To conclude, one can see a lot of similarities between the concepts of Gandhi and Thoreau. Both of them had worked and suffered much in their attempts to abolish slavery and finally, they won in their endeavor. Gandhi used the weapon Satyagraha to protest against injustice and Thoreau also did the same with his civil disobedience. Satyagraha was the weapon of the weak. Civil disobedience never preached anarchy like criminal disobedience and always followed the way of peace. The volunteers of Satyagraha and Civil Disobedience obeyed the laws and regarded it as their duty to do so. But they violated it whenever they felt that they are unjust. Anyhow it is evident that Gandhis concept of Satyagraha has a wide application. But the Thoreaus concept of Civil Disobedience is applied mostly at the political level.
While speaking on the topic of political obligation and civil disobedience, it would be relevant to note that the discussion and analysis of the issue of political obligation can be regarded as one of the most permanent characteristics of democratic political thought. If to regard a legal political obligation and a moral obligation, also called a natural duty, then it is necessary to dispute on the topic whether or not common people can have a moral obligation (natural duty) to perform the required legal political obligations.
If referring to liberal political theorists, the term of moral obligation is often thought to be concerned less with external conduct than with internal motivation, in the sense that acting morally is said to require acting with a particular attitude or sense of duty (Hart, 1973, pp. 188 189).
Discussion
Following this, it might be pointed out that liberal political theorists suggest that the issues of legal obligation and coercion should be regarded as inseparable ones, thus, it is impossible to deem obedience to the law within the context of a genuine moral motivation or intendment. Nevertheless, such coercion helps in the process of separation of legal obligation and natural duty moral obligation.
The disparity between the issues of legal political obligation and moral obligation makes it hard for liberal political theorists to analyze the natural duty and the moral basis of any persons submission to his or her government and law.
The Consent theory designed by liberal political theorists suggests the model involving a persons consenting to obey and respect the law. Thus, the issue of consent moralizes the act of a persons obedience to the law and a person gives himself or herself certain moral cause to obey the law without pressure and freely. Hereby, it is possible to state that people might perform their political obligation only in the case if the law, as well as political obligation, becomes for them a sort of act which they freely ought to perform if they are to act morally.
The Consent theory defines obedience to the law and political obligation as a certain act people are morally obliged to perform. Such an act should be performed for a persons motives rather than for fear or self-interest, so that by consenting to obey the law, individuals may be said to obey their own wills when they obey the law, rather than be subjected to dependence on the wills of other persons (Adler, 2002, p. 244).
Various liberal and democratic political philosophers support the idea that the moral legitimacy of truly democratic and liberal government comes from the consent of the governed, a thesis that is generally based upon Lockes assumption that no man can be& subjected to the Political Power of another without his own consent (Locke, 2005, vol. 2, sec. 95, p. 374). According to Lockes statement, it is possible to conclude that ones consent is an essential condition to his or her being lawfully subjected to the exercise of political authority and power by other ones.
Hereby, it heuristically follows that the moral right of the democratic and liberal government to subject its own citizens to the exercise of political authority and power would, necessarily, demand the consent of those citizens subject to obeying the laws of society with liberal and democratic values.
While discussing the topic of political obligation and civil disobedience, it is necessary to take into consideration the issues of moral obligation as well as moral justification. The issues of freedom and autonomy must be analyzed and taken into account, as they are frequently used to reconcile the process of having a moral natural duty to obey the law with maintaining a persons individual rights for the above-mentioned freedom and autonomy.
Following these statements, it might be suggested that when an individual freely participates in an election process, he subconsciously consents to obey and respect the law. Liberal and democratic theorists argue that the democratic ideal of government by consent may be used in an entirely non-hypothetical sense, referring to the actual consent of individual citizens (Fowler, 2000, pp. 46 47).
The above-mentioned procedure can be described as an exact act performed by particular people at selected periods of time rather than as an unapprehended vague process. But, it must be pointed out that, if defining the act of voting as a method of consent that applies to the natural duty, it is possible to distort the normative significance of electoral participation as this participation is defined in the liberal and democratic tradition of political thought (Fowler and Orenstein, 1997, pp. 128 129).
If referring to Lockes political thought, which holds a contrary position and establishes a coherent non-consent theory of political obligation and political legitimacy , it appears that consent is used as a hypothetical and rhetorical obligation. Within this context, consent, by itself, is used to propose what would be relevant and rationale for any person to consent.
Thus, according to Pitkin, consent is used as a hypothetical means of expressing a theory of the kinds of ends and purposes a government ought to promote in order to deserve obedience (Pitkin, 2004, p. 999). Such an interpretation established by Pitkin has been strongly supported by another political theorist Cassinelli.
Alleging to Locke, again, it is necessary to point out that he excludes personal consent as a necessary and essential condition of political obligation as a natural duty as well as political legitimacy. Oppositely to him, another theorist Jules Steinberg suggests the model of morally diverse and pluralistic society and asserts that liberal political ideas are applicable primarily to a morally diverse and pluralistic society, that there is a normative logic characteristic of liberal political thought that is incompatible with the normative logic characteristic of the consent theory of political obligation (Steinberg, 2004, p. 8).
Tracing the problem of the political obligation and civil disobedience with the regard to political theorist Rousseau, it is necessary to point out that he connects the issue of moral autonomy with his own theory of consent. The theorist also suggests certain ways in which the performance by individuals of moral autonomy might be combined with obedience to the law and political obligation.
In his political thought, Rousseau suggests solutions with the view to reconcile obedience to the law and moral obligation in terms of a conception of an individual consent that is intended to demonstrate how moral autonomy may not be violated by obedience to the law (Reiman, 2003, pp. 3 4). Contrary to Rousseaus viewpoint, Locke and his successors liberal and liberal-democratic political theorists, consider the principle of personal autonomy as privatized. According to them, this principle becomes capable of being exercised when a person is not compelled to obey the law and political obligations.
Conclusion
After describing, comparing, analyzing, and critically evaluating all of the above-provided materials on the topic of the political obligation and civil disobedience and of understanding the above mentioned political obligation as a natural duty, it might be concluded that individual does not have a congenital moral obligation or natural duty to obey the law and political obligations, although obedience to the law and political obligation is morally justified. Therefore, it might be stated that a person has a natural moral duty to obey a law and political obligation as it is morally justified.
A number of political philosophers argue that the concept of a natural duty or moral obligation can not be regarded as equivalent to moral justification. For example, an individual might be morally ought to fulfill an act without having any obligation to do that. As such, it is possible to conclude that person does not have a moral obligation or natural duty to obey and respect a morally justified law or political obligation.
Following this, it is necessary to note that moral obligations, called natural duty, appear when some people commit themselves to do something for other individuals with the commitment establishing what may be called a relationship of obligation involving an individual, the performance of an act, and another individual to whom the act to be performed is owed (Taylor, 1973, p. 107).
Thus, it is possible to assert that natural duty creates certain moral reasons for any person to perform an activity where this moral reason was previously absent. In accordance with political theorist Gewirth obligations make what was previously indifferent or optional for a particular person into something he must do (Gewirth, 2000, p.132).
What happens, nowadays, is that citizens are not convinced and do not feel that freely voting actually means freely consenting. Consent is considered as a necessary and essential term of political obligation, particularly, in the context of liberal and democratic order government.
References
Adler, M. J. 2002. The Idea of Freedom. Doubleday, New York: vol. 1, pp. 224-249.
Fowler, R. B. 2002. Political Obligation and the Draft, in Obligation and Dissent, eds. Donald W. Hanson and Robert Booth Fowler. Little Brown, Boston: pp. 46-62.
Fowler, M. J. and Orenstein J. R. 1997. Contemporary Issues in Political Theory. John Wiley & Sons, New York: pp. 117-137.
Gewirth, L. 2000. Political Justice. Mandarin, London.
Hart, H. L. A. 1973. Legal and Moral Obligation, in Concepts in Social & Political Philosophy, ed. Richard E. Flathman. Macmillan, New York: pp. 187-200.
Pitkin, H. 2004. Obligation and Consent. Macmillan, New York.
Reiman, J. H. 2003. In Defense of Political Philosophy. Harper & Row, New York: pp. 1-16.
Steinberg, J. 1978. Locke, Rosseau, and the Idea of Consent: An Inquiry into the Liberal-Democratic Theory of Political Obligation. Greenwood Press, Westport, CT.
Locke, J. 2005. Two Treatises of Government, ed. Peter Laslett, rev. ed. Mentor, New York: vol. 2, sec. 95, p. 374.
Taylor, R. 1973. Freedom, Anarchy, and the Law. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.
Moir, A. & Jessel, D. 1991, Brain Sex: The Real Difference Between Men and Women, Mandarin, London.
The existence of laws is an integral part of providing the proper functioning of any society. The laws are created by the members of the society when the necessity for regulating particular behavior occurs. All people have subjective opinions and personal interests, which influence their decisions. Therefore, people are predisposed to make mistakes. The creation of laws is also influenced by the subjective views of the individuals involved in its creation. It leads to the occurrence of mistakes made while designing the laws. Such a situation results in the possibility of the creation of legislation, which does not reflect the real attitudes of society towards certain aspects of everyday life. Such laws can be defined as unjust ones.
They put a threat on the successful functioning of the society instead of promoting justice. Unjust laws raise a number of questions about our understanding of the laws and the responsibility to follow them (Edlin 1). The common ways of opposing unjust laws are the protest and civil disobedience (Carbonara, Parisi, and Wangenheim 1). Such behavior, naturally, causes certain penalties enacted by the country. I consider accepting the unjust penalties enacted by the state a part of the activity that promotes the awareness of the injustice of certain laws and regard it as the demonstration of the persons respect to the country.
In my opinion, the person who is not willing to follow the unjust laws should understand the consequences of the violation of the laws and face them with full respect to the legislative system. Martin Luther King, Jr, in the letter dated 16 April 1963, stated, One who breaks an unjust law must do it openly, lovingly (9). Therefore, the person breaking the unjust law should not hide from the penalty. If the individual violates the law considered unjust, he/she should not break the law that puts the penalty for violation of another law. Otherwise, such a person can be considered a constant lawbreaker instead of being regarded as a thoughtful opponent to the unjust laws.
The violation of unjust laws can be considered a public demonstration of the certain civil position of the person. To make this demonstration effective for promoting the consciousness of other members of the society and encouraging them to take a similar civil position, the person demonstrating distrust of the certain law should, at the same time, show full respect and love for the country. The patriot should be thankful for all the advantages provided for him by the state. The person considered a real patriot of his/her country by most of the compatriots is able to find support in striving for disclosure of the injustice of certain laws.
Therefore, the readiness to accept penalties contributes to creating a reputation of a dutiful citizen who cares for the country and respects it. The person with the reputation of a dutiful citizen is more likely to attract attention and deserve the trust of compatriots. Therefore, he/she is more likely to cause positive changes in society. Socrates points to the necessity of being a good citizen claiming, You must do what the city and the homeland orders, or convince her by appealing to what is naturally just (Plato Crito 8). He also states, It is not holy to use force against ones mother or father, and it is so much worse to do so against ones homeland (Plato Crito 8). I agree with such a position and consider using force inappropriately. Instead, the person who cares for the destiny of the state should show the dissatisfaction with the certain law in a deliberate way, without disobeying more laws and showing disrespect to the whole country.
Only the positive image of the person willing to demonstrate the injustice of the particular law can contribute to raising the consciousness of other people. The actions of this person should be well weighed and show a good example instead of becoming a subject of reproach. The readiness to accept even the most severe penalty for conscious breaking of the law is demonstrated by Socrates (Plato The Apology 39). He does not refuse to express his attitude to certain laws but is willing to accept the sentence for breaking them. I think he is an example of a person who is interested in being a cause of changes in the laws and behaves like a worthy citizen of the state. Such behavior creates positive feedback in society and arouses the consciousness of the community over the injustice of certain laws.
Seeking justice is one of the primary priorities of every human being, as Socrates said, Whether there is just, there is also holy (Plato Euthyphro 14). However, the actions taken for exposing unjust laws should be well-considered and aimed at showing maximum respect to the legal system itself. Therefore, accepting the penalties enacted by the country for breaking unjust laws should be considered a vital part of actions aimed at demonstrating the injustice of these laws and causing positive changes in the legislative system and the whole society.
Edlin, Douglas. Judges and Unjust Laws: Common Law Constitutionalism and the Foundations of Judicial Review, Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2008. Print.
In the Resistance to civil government essay, which was posthumously published as Civil disobedience, Thoreau explains the need to choose ones moral sense over the conventional dictates of laws. He claims that the governments power is based more on the influence that the majority possesses rather than on the desire to act legitimately and fairly, which makes it overall unreliable as a source of morality (Levine et al., 2017). He also claims that peoples main priority is to do what they consider justified and not blindly heed the law dictated from above. In other words, people should refuse to obey the law and create distance between themselves and the government if they see it being unjust. Despite the fact that an individual is not bound to commit his life to the worlds salvation from evils, he is nonetheless compelled not to partake in them.
I agree with Thoreaus vision of justice, especially with the part concerning participation in injustice. The idea of making a personal decision to either oppose or not to participate is fundamental in this context. I believe it might be the perfect boundary for the level of interference people should make when they face it shorthand. With the consideration of taking the idea of disobedience to its maximum, an individual might soon find himself breaking the laws that might endanger other peoples well-being and invoke punishment, for example, incarceration. According to Thoreau, the ways of causing legal changes from inside the government, for example, voting or petitioning, are greatly unproductive (Levine et al., 2017). For me, this claim seems anarchistic and, to some extent, extremist; it serves as proof of the boundary effect of personal moral standards that every individual possesses. In this context, it becomes more significant to be aware of evil and contribute to the opposition in possible ways, avoiding overextension.
Reference
Levine, R. S., Elliott, M. A., Gustafson, S. M., Hungerford, A. & Loeffelholz, M. (2017). The Norton anthology of American literature. (9th ed.). W.W. Norton.
The importance of literature in our lives is impossible to exaggerate, partly because it represents the accumulated knowledge of the best minds of mankind through the whole course of human history, partly because it is the manifestation of knowledge every individual is able to obtain, to master and to apply further in his or her life. One can say that the literary heritage of the humanity is the potential limit of knowledge one can generate at a definite moment without creating something of his or her own and without enriching it. Knowledge is the most precious treasure in a human life, which more than that gives wisdom and guidelines for future improvement and initiates contribution to the overall wisdom of eternity. This is what every individual who has doubts or considerations on the issue of whether he or she should read or not and what reading may give to a person.
It is clear that reading should not be conducted in an unorganized way this activity may only pollute the human mind and give no structured knowledge to the reader, which is likely to eliminate the motivation and generate disappointment in reading in general. It is desirable that every person should identify for him- or herself what areas are interesting for them and focus their attention on these particular materials.
But still, there is always such a notion as general knowledge the materials that give the enrichment to the human soul, that contribute to his understanding of society, the surrounding world, spirituality, morale and empowerment. These materials may be met in the whole scope of literature produced within dozens of centuries unexpectedly and open up the boundless horizon of activities, discoveries and inferences the reader may have not even supposed to reach. In order to choose the right path of cognition in the literary sphere it is always desirable to choose certain patterns, some authorities on whose opinion the individual may rely in the choice of literature.
Identifying these authorities is purely individual, as every person will have a subjective opinion on this issue. Some people turn to parents, others to friends, tutors or mass media idols. However, one should not forget about such an option as turning to literary giants who themselves achieved a tremendous success in the literary sphere and share their experience on where they took the source of their inspiration and wisdom, on who they relied and what they learned from the experience of the past.
The works to be discussed in the present paper are the writings of Ralph Waldo Emerson The American Scholar , Henry David Thoreau Walden and Civil Disobedience and Frederick Douglass Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass: an American slave . These authors have made an enormous contribution to the development of American literature on the whole, being at the same time the propagators of purity of literature free from politicizing or any other impact of tendencies, people and events that do not have any connection with the greatness of the human minds expression. What is more particular about these books is that the authors include their guidance of reading, their recommendations on what works a reader should pay attention to in order to make another step forward in his or her moral, spiritual and intellectual development. They justify their opinion with the inferences they personally made from these authors books in their time to emphasize the importance of thematic reading, thus giving guidance for those who are lost in the enormous flow of unsorted literature and cannot find their way of mastering knowledge. They also include their personal importance they assign to these books, making the major emphasis on personal experience, thus becoming entitled to give advice on the point. So, the major sense of the present work is to find out why reading is so important, what these authors advice their readers to read and why the mentioned authors consider this literature important not only in their lives but for the whole humanity.
Frederick Douglass
Starting the present analysis from the book of Frederick Douglass Narrative of the life of Frederick Douglass: an American slave , it is first of all necessary to say a few words about the book itself and its significance in the whole course of American literature. Frederick Douglass was a foreground representative of the Abolitionist party, being used for a more picturesque representation of the Abolitionist needs and agenda, being more able to convince the public in the necessity of Abolition of slavery. He spoke in an expressive way and managed to produce the necessary effect on the public. However, he was considered unable to write in a correct literary language as an African American person he faced this discrimination even after being freed from slavery. Thus, the narrative was a powerful act of resistance to the prejudice of the hypocritical American society who wanted to free their slaves but were still unwilling to give them the whole set of freedoms, including the freedom of expression.
The main focus in this book relevant for the present discussion should be made on chapters 6 and 7 where the author describes the way he was taught to read and what impact in his life this fact produced. Before being able to read, the author did not feel the power reading had and did not know the possible impact it could make on his life. However, after hearing what his master said about reading, Douglass gradually came to understanding the fact that reading would matter much to him. The words of Mr.Auld pertaining to the fact that his wife started to teach a slave reading, bear a highly symbolic sense even for the contemporary generation of people making the first steps on the way of their intellectual evolution and stresses the power reading may give to a thinking human being:
Now, said he, if you teach that nigger (speaking of myself) how to read, there would be no keeping him. It would forever unfit him to be a slave. He would at once become unmanageable, and of no value to his master. As to himself, it could do him no good, but a great deal of harm. It would make him discontented and unhappy (Douglass, 2008, p. 33).
By this passage the author clearly shows, though on a practical example, the symbolism of an uneducated person being a slave. As soon as the person knows how to read, he will ever be contented with the level of his intellectual development and will strive for more. As it happened in case with Frederick Douglass, as one will see further, reading changed his life and made him aspire for things unbelievable and unconceivable for a slave.
In further passages the author passionately describes the tiniest opportunity he used to obtain a smallest part of knowledge, how he fed poor little boys in the streets to ask them to teach him some more reading, and how irrepressibly he strove towards self-improvement. And indeed, at that moment of time he became obsessed by the idea of his being a slave for his whole life, which disturbed him and caused strong inner irritation and discontent. His masters turned out to be right when saying that a thinking, reading slave would never be able to be a good slave who was capable of only fulfilling the established tasks.
At that moment the author came across the book of Sheridan The Columbian Orator that produced a powerful effect on his life, perception and future. The main fragments that impressed the author were the talk between the master and the slave who managed to prove to the former that slavery was an evil, justifying the reasons for three escapes of his, and the speech devoted to the role of church in the justification of slavery. This was a turning point in the life of Douglass then he told the reader about the power of reading he felt and the importance of the book he first read. The impression was mostly built on the fact that the slave, the hero of the book, managed to win his freedom by appealing to the common reason of his master and managed to achieve the truth. For Douglass reading also became his pursuit of truth he hoped that with the help of reading every person would search for his or her own truth and would choose the book that would have major influence on their life. As it follows in the narrative, reading that book about unrestrained freedom and power of wisdom that may defeat any unfairness the author began his fight for freedom and finally achieved what he so passionately desired. This is why reading is so important for Frederick Douglass and this is why he mentions the book that had such decisive importance in his life.
Ralph Waldo Emerson
The address of Ralph Waldo Emerson made in 1837 titled The American Scholar pertains to the same topic the author investigates the reasons for people to read, the knowledge they should look for in the books and how they should choose their books. This address is especially important in the context of the present discussion because of its main emphasis on reading and literature on the whole in the intellectual development of an individual and the society in general. The author states that scientists are people who have nothing but the treasure of their knowledge; this is why the contenders who want to achieve success in the scientific area have to accumulate their experience, wisdom and knowledge from different sources. The author himself indicates the following sources: nature, the experience of the past, and action.
When speaking about the experience of the past, Emerson diminishes the role of Cicero, Locke and Bacon stating that their ideas are not mature enough to be taken as an obligatory source of wisdom or knowledge. He states the main reason for these authors being so popular is the bureaucracy of the high education system that is slow to evolve and keep up to date with the newest literary tendencies. At the same time the author distinguishes some best books that impress us with the conviction, that one nature wrote and the same reads including the works of Chaucer, Marvell and Dryden in the list (Emerson, 1837).
In his considerations Emerson also goes beyond the scope of classic knowledge given by literary works; he includes the striving to resemble the forefathers of literature, the compliance with their great and thoughtful traditions, and the discontent with the present state of literature and social life that makes a certain impact on the manner and strength of expression. He admires such authors as Goldsmith, Cowper, Goethe, Wordsworth, Carlyle and others, assessing their works in a critical way and admitting that the style of writing they have is completely different; however, he cannot help stating that all of them gave inspiration to forthcoming generations of creators, thus accepting their unique role in the contemporary literary process.
The drop is a small ocean. A man is related to all nature. This perception of the worth of the vulgar is fruitful in discoveries. Goethe, in this very thing the most modern of the moderns, has shown us, as none ever did, the genius of the ancients (Emerson, 1837).
Emersons way of appreciation of one author is particularly impressive the author appraises the activity and the literary heritage of Emanuel Swedenborg, paying tribute to the power of his expression, the wisdom of his thought and the agility of his beliefs and character. The appreciation of Emerson goes beyond all measures; however, Emerson clearly explains why he would put this author on the highest place and why knowing him should be a must for every intellectually developed or developing personality.
The most imaginative of men, yet writing with the precision of a mathematician, he endeavored to engraft a purely philosophical Ethics on the popular Christianity of his time. Such an attempt, of course, must have difficulty, which no genius could surmount. But he saw and showed the connection between nature and the affections of the soul (Emerson, 1837).
Emerson is highly concentrated on inspiration, thus being more similar in his views to the way Douglass treats literature as a source of inspiration. However, their difference o perception of reading lies within the scope of influence it had on their life. It goes without saying that Douglass perceives one book, The Columbian Orator , as a guideline in his lie and freedom, while Emerson appreciates pure inspiration and focuses on a larger set of writers.
Henry David Thoreau
Proceeding to the analysis of Henry David Thoreau, his Reading chapter, it is clear that Thoreau is of a bit other opinion about the purpose of reading. This famous representative of Transcendentalism sees the initial aim of reading in being kept up-to-date about the destiny of his country and fellowmen, in appreciating people who whose genius is not recognized in the time when they write, with a vague perspective of being recognized after death. Thoreau speaks about reading as dealing with truth and the way to acquire immortality, as compared to other mortal activities. He himself states that the environment he has chosen, living in the wilderness, is highly positive and favorable for reading, which suits him much. Thoreau is very critical towards reading and thinks that some books are useless, compared to other writings that enrich our soul and mind comparing the book by Homer he could not get to because of being busy with building the house, he tells about two plain books he read and says that he himself was ashamed of doing that. This fact indicates his being very picky and selective about reading, which he advises to other people as well. The writer sees the problem of contemporary people in following blindly the choice of literature offered by so-called specialists, while in reality this choice remains highly doubtable.
If we will read newspapers, why not skip the gossip of Boston and take the best newspaper in the world at once? not be sucking the pap of neutral family papers, or browsing Olive-Branches here in New England. Let the reports of all the learned societies come to us, and we will see if they know any thing. Why should we leave it to Harper & Brothers and Redding & Co, to select our reading? (Thoreau, 2005, p. 89).
Thus, drawing a conclusion from the works being considered in the present research, it is necessary to emphasize the role they attribute to reading as the main source of creativity, agility of thought and mind, the incentive to progress and innovation as well as the main source of wisdom, development and improvement. Every individual should be actively engaged in reading; however, it is important to be able to independently sort out the necessary set of literature to be studied this is the main precondition of intellectual development and enhancement.
Conclusion
All three writers have a very specific attitude to reading as it had a great influence on their life and made them what they have eventually become. They pay tribute to selected authors and recommend them with a fair justification of their choice; however, they do not diminish the importance of reading on the whole, only calling people not to follow others preferences and to make their independent choice for themselves. Douglass cherishes reading as a decisive point in his life and names one book that played the major role in his life. This point is supported by Emerson as well but Emerson judges more widely about a respectable literary choice and attributes the main function of inspiration to literature; Thoreau speculates on the essence of reading on the whole and worships books as a storage of wisdom, immortality and truth.
Bibliography
Douglass, F. (2008). Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave. READ BOOKS, 144 pp.
Critos apology is an essay done by Socrates, a Greek philosopher; where he seeks to express truthfully his beliefs. His apology, which is rather a statement, is viewed as one full of meaning and truth as he addresses his close friend, Crito. Socrates is a critical thinker who is dedicated to moral character and he questioned the beliefs of the youths in Athens who trusted in opinions which were not necessarily true.
Socrates got a death sentence out of his political activities, which apparently corrupted the youth and the religious practices. The apology details how his disciples tried to aid his escape from prison and how Socrates brought up an argument on whether it was a good idea as he worried too much about the repercussions (Kemerling, 2006).
Thoreau Civil Disobedience is the work of Henry David Thoreau who was a nature enthusiast. He wrote the essay titled civil disobedience, which won many politicians hearts. This essay seeks to find out why people of a state will subscribe to unjust governance without complaining. Thoreau exercised disobedience when he refused to pay poll tax whose returns offered support to the slave trade and the Mexican war, which he so detested and this led to his imprisonment (McElroy, 2005).
This case study seeks also to compare and contrast between the essay for Critos apology and Thoreau civil disobedience and stage a personal argument.
Similarities between the Critos apology and Thoreaus civil disobedience
Both essays are associated with the way their governments of the day used to function and they also seek to change the mindsets of the people though at different levels. Socrates wants the people to be submissive to the government while Thoreau warns the people who follow the laws of the state blindly even if they are infringing on their own rights and they do not reflect what is right in their own view.
Thoreau and Critos essays believe in morality of human beings. They feel that human beings have the moral authority to be just if given the chance. They feel that no human being would want to default knowingly and it is sad that people still commit injustices even armed with a moral conviction. (Term papers, 2005).
The other striking similarity with these two essays is their writing while these history makers were in jail. Thoreaus incarceration resulted from disobeying the laws of the land and it was while in jail that he wrote the civil disobedience essay. Socrates was also in jail serving a term awaiting the death penalty for corrupting the youth and discrediting the state preferred religion when he wrote the apology (Term paper, 2005).
In both essays, we have philosophers who sought to bring change through defiance. In the apology, Socrates is seen as a highly ethical man who sought to interrogate and discuss the laws before subscribing to them and he questions them and engages youths in discussions where they dissect the stated laws (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (a).
In Thoreaus civil disobedience essay, the same concerns surface as Thoreau seeks to disobey the laws he does not believe in. He does not find sense when he is supposed to subscribe to laws that do not appeal to him just because the government passed them. His defiance when it comes to paying tax strikes a similarity with Socrates questioning of the laws, which is appealing to the high officials (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (b).
In both the essays, Socrates and Thoreau find themselves on the wrong side of the law for failure to conform to the later. Socrates incarceration emanates from crimes of corrupting the youth among other crimes against religion. Thoreaus incarceration on the other hand comes from failing to pay tax, which he believes goes into fueling wars and slave trades, things he campaigns against strongly (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (b).
Contrast between the Critos apology and Thoreau civil disobedience essays
Thoreaus civil disobedience essay is against the government whereas Socrates Critios apology is for the government. Thoreau felt that the government was an evil that the people did not need whereas Socrates felt that the government deserved obedience and this called for the people to be submissive to it. Thoreau even came up with a motto that stated that the best government was the one that governed the least. He also added that people were ought to embrace a government that respected their freedoms.
This he drove at showing that the absence of the government was what people needed to become successful. The striking difference in these two essays is that Thoreau is more rebellious when it comes to the government and he feels that the government is wrong and it must be subjected to criticism to review the laws that infringe on the peoples rights. On the other hand, Socrates shows devotion to the government of the day and is ready to give up everything to side with its decisions. (Term papers, 2005).
While Socrates exercises compassion for the government and seems ready to do anything for it, Thoreau loathes the government and this hatred exceeds when he is jailed for an offence he considers minor. After release from jail, Thoreau does not reform and spreads the word on disobedience influencing the masses to revolt against the government. Socrates goes ahead to loose his life through a death penalty as the government is adamant to see things go its way.
Thoreaus civil disobedience essay is more realistic as compared to Critos apology in that it was rebellious and this set up a revolution to implement the changes that people wanted to see. Critos apology on the other hand is more unrealistic in that its primary goal was to ensure that the same views on the government were shared. It did not leave room for an argumentative debate where people would stand on their own ground voicing their own views (Term paper, 2005).
Another contrast presents itself from these essays where the Crito apology insinuates that the people of a country are in an agreement with their government. The kill here is that they abide by the laws set by the government and the government in turn protects them.
Thoreaus essay on civil disobedience tends to differ by saying that the people of a country do not have to agree with what the government has laid down for them if it is unjust. He feels that rebellion to bad laws is important and people do not have to put up with bad governance as this makes them hypocrites (Term paper, 2005).
Socrates and Thoreau are two people with the same concerns about their governments but they bring out their concerns in a disparate way. This is dictated by their beliefs and social standing which makes them trend in different paths. Greece, which is Socrates origin, matches great men with honor and lesser men with shame.
This limits Socrates ambitions no matter how much he advocated for truth as depicted in the Critos apology and he fears to come out of the person he is, as he fears the repercussions of doing so. His friends even organize his escape but his worry about what people will say stops him in his tracks. He is also worried that he will loose his social standing by doing such a thing and sees himself being treated as an outcast (123helpme, 2010).
On the other hand, Thoreau is a strong man who is not afraid to voice his opinions and embrace the repercussions that emanate from it. Thoreau believes in self-conviction rather than social conviction and this shows why he is not moved by the masses but by what he feels and believes is right.
He feels that individuals have a right to choose what is wrong and right and act accordingly regardless of what the law says about it. He does not believe in the publics opinion of his actions and therefore discards things such as honor, punishment, and shame as ridiculous (123helpme, 2010)
Case study argument
Both Socrates and Thoreau were justified in their concerns about the government. However, in my opinion, I feel that Thoreaus stand in his philosophies would have brought about a lot of harm than good. It would have opened up to a permissive society where there is no order and no one cares what people do.
When he talks of the people not needing a government, I feel that he is loosing practicality since for a government to run smoothly, there has to be set rules and repercussions for the lawbreakers. Socrates takes sides with the government and gives us a picture of a state where the government takes center stage. According to Socrates, the government must be obeyed and the laws have to be followed to the later whether they are good or bad.
Thoreau seeks to differ with Socrates saying that people do not have to submit to bad governance and they have every right to abscond what is not right. In his personal experience, Thoreau refused to pay poll tax as he personally felt that the government used the revenue to support the Mexican war and slave trade, which he was opposed to. For this reason, he was incarcerated though he was released a day later as family members bailed him out.
I feel that Socrates was more rational in his judgment about his government and all it needed was for the people to obey the laws it had laid down for them. In his views, Socrates felt that the government brought order and this in the long run translated to better and civilized lives for its people. Thoreau was more bent on individual success and advocated for individuality and in my view this philosophy would not have augured well with many loyal citizens of the state.
He kept seeing the government as a block to the success of its citizens through laws, which he termed, as infringements. For him to advocate that people do what is right is immoral in the sense that not all what seems right to us is right for everyone. For instance, someone would feel that acts of terrorism are okay and go ahead to implement it because it is what he wants to do and believes that it is right to him.
In my opinion, this is utterly ridiculous because we live in a diverse world which has become a melting pot for all cultures. We therefore have to be governed by laws that dictate how we conduct ourselves to avert such commotions, which would result from a permissive society. I therefore feel that Thoreaus philosophies were wrong and they should not have seen the light of day.
Conclusion
Both Socrates and Thoreau had strong thesis on what an ideal people-government relationship should be like. They however had their shortcomings in either way, as some were too extreme and other just ridiculous. Their contrast brings about an interesting factor of civil obedience on the part of the Critos apology done by Socrates and civil disobedience as portrayed by Thoreau. We see that Socrates worst fear was what the society would say and he could not stand shame and dishonor.
The rebellious Thoreau feared no societal criticism and all he cared about was what he felt was right for him. They both ended up in jail as punishment for their misdeeds and the irony is overwhelming. Socrates was however more practical as compared to Thoreau who gave ideas of a lawless society which would have caused more harm than good.
References
Kemerling, G. (2006). Socrates (469-399 B.C.E). NY: Routledge.
McElroy, W. (2005). Henry Thoreau and civil disobedience. Future of freedom Foundation. Vol (87).9-9.
SparkNotes Editors. (2010) (a). SparkNote on The Apology. Web.
SparkNotes Editors. (2010) (b). SparkNote on Civil Disobedience. Web.
Term papers. (2005). Socrates versus Thoreau. Web.
123HelpMe (2010). Comparing Thoreau and Socrates. Web.
Critos apology is an essay done by Socrates, a Greek philosopher; where he seeks to express truthfully his beliefs. His apology, which is rather a statement, is viewed as one full of meaning and truth as he addresses his close friend, Crito. Socrates is a critical thinker who is dedicated to moral character and he questioned the beliefs of the youths in Athens who trusted in opinions which were not necessarily true.
Socrates got a death sentence out of his political activities, which apparently corrupted the youth and the religious practices. The apology details how his disciples tried to aid his escape from prison and how Socrates brought up an argument on whether it was a good idea as he worried too much about the repercussions (Kemerling, 2006).
Thoreau Civil Disobedience is the work of Henry David Thoreau who was a nature enthusiast. He wrote the essay titled civil disobedience, which won many politicians hearts. This essay seeks to find out why people of a state will subscribe to unjust governance without complaining. Thoreau exercised disobedience when he refused to pay poll tax whose returns offered support to the slave trade and the Mexican war, which he so detested and this led to his imprisonment (McElroy, 2005).
This case study seeks also to compare and contrast between the essay for Critos apology and Thoreau civil disobedience and stage a personal argument.
Similarities between the Critos apology and Thoreaus civil disobedience
Both essays are associated with the way their governments of the day used to function and they also seek to change the mindsets of the people though at different levels. Socrates wants the people to be submissive to the government while Thoreau warns the people who follow the laws of the state blindly even if they are infringing on their own rights and they do not reflect what is right in their own view.
Thoreau and Critos essays believe in morality of human beings. They feel that human beings have the moral authority to be just if given the chance. They feel that no human being would want to default knowingly and it is sad that people still commit injustices even armed with a moral conviction. (Term papers, 2005).
The other striking similarity with these two essays is their writing while these history makers were in jail. Thoreaus incarceration resulted from disobeying the laws of the land and it was while in jail that he wrote the civil disobedience essay. Socrates was also in jail serving a term awaiting the death penalty for corrupting the youth and discrediting the state preferred religion when he wrote the apology (Term paper, 2005).
In both essays, we have philosophers who sought to bring change through defiance. In the apology, Socrates is seen as a highly ethical man who sought to interrogate and discuss the laws before subscribing to them and he questions them and engages youths in discussions where they dissect the stated laws (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (a).
In Thoreaus civil disobedience essay, the same concerns surface as Thoreau seeks to disobey the laws he does not believe in. He does not find sense when he is supposed to subscribe to laws that do not appeal to him just because the government passed them. His defiance when it comes to paying tax strikes a similarity with Socrates questioning of the laws, which is appealing to the high officials (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (b).
In both the essays, Socrates and Thoreau find themselves on the wrong side of the law for failure to conform to the later. Socrates incarceration emanates from crimes of corrupting the youth among other crimes against religion. Thoreaus incarceration on the other hand comes from failing to pay tax, which he believes goes into fueling wars and slave trades, things he campaigns against strongly (SparkNotes Editors, 2010) (b).
Contrast between the Critos apology and Thoreau civil disobedience essays
Thoreaus civil disobedience essay is against the government whereas Socrates Critios apology is for the government. Thoreau felt that the government was an evil that the people did not need whereas Socrates felt that the government deserved obedience and this called for the people to be submissive to it. Thoreau even came up with a motto that stated that the best government was the one that governed the least. He also added that people were ought to embrace a government that respected their freedoms.
This he drove at showing that the absence of the government was what people needed to become successful. The striking difference in these two essays is that Thoreau is more rebellious when it comes to the government and he feels that the government is wrong and it must be subjected to criticism to review the laws that infringe on the peoples rights. On the other hand, Socrates shows devotion to the government of the day and is ready to give up everything to side with its decisions. (Term papers, 2005).
While Socrates exercises compassion for the government and seems ready to do anything for it, Thoreau loathes the government and this hatred exceeds when he is jailed for an offence he considers minor. After release from jail, Thoreau does not reform and spreads the word on disobedience influencing the masses to revolt against the government. Socrates goes ahead to loose his life through a death penalty as the government is adamant to see things go its way.
Thoreaus civil disobedience essay is more realistic as compared to Critos apology in that it was rebellious and this set up a revolution to implement the changes that people wanted to see. Critos apology on the other hand is more unrealistic in that its primary goal was to ensure that the same views on the government were shared. It did not leave room for an argumentative debate where people would stand on their own ground voicing their own views (Term paper, 2005).
Another contrast presents itself from these essays where the Crito apology insinuates that the people of a country are in an agreement with their government. The kill here is that they abide by the laws set by the government and the government in turn protects them.
Thoreaus essay on civil disobedience tends to differ by saying that the people of a country do not have to agree with what the government has laid down for them if it is unjust. He feels that rebellion to bad laws is important and people do not have to put up with bad governance as this makes them hypocrites (Term paper, 2005).
Socrates and Thoreau are two people with the same concerns about their governments but they bring out their concerns in a disparate way. This is dictated by their beliefs and social standing which makes them trend in different paths. Greece, which is Socrates origin, matches great men with honor and lesser men with shame.
This limits Socrates ambitions no matter how much he advocated for truth as depicted in the Critos apology and he fears to come out of the person he is, as he fears the repercussions of doing so. His friends even organize his escape but his worry about what people will say stops him in his tracks. He is also worried that he will loose his social standing by doing such a thing and sees himself being treated as an outcast (123helpme, 2010).
On the other hand, Thoreau is a strong man who is not afraid to voice his opinions and embrace the repercussions that emanate from it. Thoreau believes in self-conviction rather than social conviction and this shows why he is not moved by the masses but by what he feels and believes is right.
He feels that individuals have a right to choose what is wrong and right and act accordingly regardless of what the law says about it. He does not believe in the publics opinion of his actions and therefore discards things such as honor, punishment, and shame as ridiculous (123helpme, 2010)
Case study argument
Both Socrates and Thoreau were justified in their concerns about the government. However, in my opinion, I feel that Thoreaus stand in his philosophies would have brought about a lot of harm than good. It would have opened up to a permissive society where there is no order and no one cares what people do.
When he talks of the people not needing a government, I feel that he is loosing practicality since for a government to run smoothly, there has to be set rules and repercussions for the lawbreakers. Socrates takes sides with the government and gives us a picture of a state where the government takes center stage. According to Socrates, the government must be obeyed and the laws have to be followed to the later whether they are good or bad.
Thoreau seeks to differ with Socrates saying that people do not have to submit to bad governance and they have every right to abscond what is not right. In his personal experience, Thoreau refused to pay poll tax as he personally felt that the government used the revenue to support the Mexican war and slave trade, which he was opposed to. For this reason, he was incarcerated though he was released a day later as family members bailed him out.
I feel that Socrates was more rational in his judgment about his government and all it needed was for the people to obey the laws it had laid down for them. In his views, Socrates felt that the government brought order and this in the long run translated to better and civilized lives for its people. Thoreau was more bent on individual success and advocated for individuality and in my view this philosophy would not have augured well with many loyal citizens of the state.
He kept seeing the government as a block to the success of its citizens through laws, which he termed, as infringements. For him to advocate that people do what is right is immoral in the sense that not all what seems right to us is right for everyone. For instance, someone would feel that acts of terrorism are okay and go ahead to implement it because it is what he wants to do and believes that it is right to him.
In my opinion, this is utterly ridiculous because we live in a diverse world which has become a melting pot for all cultures. We therefore have to be governed by laws that dictate how we conduct ourselves to avert such commotions, which would result from a permissive society. I therefore feel that Thoreaus philosophies were wrong and they should not have seen the light of day.
Conclusion
Both Socrates and Thoreau had strong thesis on what an ideal people-government relationship should be like. They however had their shortcomings in either way, as some were too extreme and other just ridiculous. Their contrast brings about an interesting factor of civil obedience on the part of the Critos apology done by Socrates and civil disobedience as portrayed by Thoreau. We see that Socrates worst fear was what the society would say and he could not stand shame and dishonor.
The rebellious Thoreau feared no societal criticism and all he cared about was what he felt was right for him. They both ended up in jail as punishment for their misdeeds and the irony is overwhelming. Socrates was however more practical as compared to Thoreau who gave ideas of a lawless society which would have caused more harm than good.
References
Kemerling, G. (2006). Socrates (469-399 B.C.E). NY: Routledge.
McElroy, W. (2005). Henry Thoreau and civil disobedience. Future of freedom Foundation. Vol (87).9-9.
SparkNotes Editors. (2010) (a). SparkNote on The Apology. Web.
SparkNotes Editors. (2010) (b). SparkNote on Civil Disobedience. Web.
Term papers. (2005). Socrates versus Thoreau. Web.
123HelpMe (2010). Comparing Thoreau and Socrates. Web.