He impugns us to do what is morally right, and to not be afraid to take a stand against injustice. Henry David Thoreau’s position on civil disobedience is neither morally irresponsible nor politically reprehensible. Civil disobedience is technically illegal, and is punishable, but who is ultimately responsible for determining what is right or wrong? Van Dusen strongly believes that defiance of laws go against the democratic nature of our government: “Bit civil disobedience, whatever the ethical rationalization, is still an assault on our
Student Professor English 305 6 November 2009 I Say No To Hate Crime Laws Hate crimes are an irrational, ignorant and cowardly expression of desperation. A person who commits a hate crime is desperate to feel better, superior and in control. That being said, there should not be special laws and mandatory sentences for people who commit these heinous acts of violence because they do not accomplish the goals of eradicating or deterring bigotry. If we, as a society, put special laws and punishments into our legal system, we are unequivocally saying that the motive of these acts is more important than the intent or outcome of these crimes. I do not believe this is true nor do I feel that this is the position of the majority of people in
He was against the Mexican War declared by American Government, as it was unjust to colonize other nations (United States itself was separated from British colonization through revolution). For this misdeed, he was imprisoned for a night. Although the crimes and the length of imprisonment of Thoreau and King were not same, both shared the same motive. Jacobus has pointed out that both Thoreau and King were willing to suffer for their views, especially with punitive laws denying civil rights to all citizens (King, 211). Socrates, a great philosopher in human history, also had followed the same path of breaking unjust laws.
Hence, it is wrong to say that one should obey just laws and disobey unjust laws. It is difficult to identify just and unjust laws. Many people have tried to define them. For example, Martin Luther King said that a law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority. While as per Thoreau, policies of the State should never be put above the individual's needs.
This essay will be in an affirmative position in regard to Albert Einstein’s quote “nothing is more destructive of respect for the government and the law of the land than passing laws which cannot be enforced”. This quote means what’s the point in making a law when you can’t make sure that it’s enforced and upheld. Also it is saying that if the law isn’t respected. One of the reasons laws are put in place are to maintain a civil society. Therefore if laws are not respected we will lose a civil society and everything will turn to chaos.
Thoreau does not agree with slavery and the “injustice” it entails. “I cannot for an instant recognize that political organization as my government which is the slave’s government also.” Thoreau doesn’t want any part in the government if it is the same government that is keeping slavery alive. Slavery, among other things, is an unjust law which Thoreau said needed to be “disobeyed.” He feels that the only way slavery will diminish is if the people do something about it. However, the people are not standing up for what is right and are not fighting the unjust laws, let alone slavery. Thoreau believes slavery will be abolished when the people stand up and say
By this time, slavery is a very hotly debated issue in America, even eventually leading to the Civil War. Thoreau obviously takes the position against slavery and tries to use his writing to try and convince the citizens of America to stand up against slavery and the laws that protect it. Thoreau often writes of the injustice that the government displays towards its people. For example, Thoreau writes, “Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?” (184). Thoreau’s purpose is to convince the citizens of America to not follow the majority, but do what is felt to be morally right.
Kevin Kuo Prof. McCormick English 1C 12 May 2014 The Imperfect Society: Justifying Civil Disobedience What exactly justifies civil disobedience? Civil disobedience is the refusal to obey laws perceived as unjust by an individual or a group of individuals. It is considered to be a form of nonviolent resistance in order to force amendments to such unjust laws. If plotted on a spectrum representing criminal levels of protest, from pacifist obedience to violent revolution, civil disobedience would land at the midpoint. Although some say that nothing justifies civil disobedience, nevertheless civil disobedience is always justified because of inalienable rights, free will, conscience, and the general will.
Communication problems may include i. Cannot start or maintain a social conversation ii. Communicates with gestures instead of words iii. Develops language slowly or not at all iv. Does not adjust gaze to look at objects that others are looking at v. Does not refer to self correctly (May say “you want that” instead of “I want that”) vi.
"He has dissolved Representtative Houses repeatedly..his invasions on the rights of the people" I believe this is why the 4th admendment came about because there were unlawful search and siezures that may have crippled many people's lives. "He has refused his assent to Laws..for the public good" I believe this is why the 1st amendment was created, because they king didn't do anything for the public good or for thier rights to practice whatever religion they wanted and to have free will to speak whatever was on thier mind without being punished for it. Also for the 9th amendment because that one states that the rights in the constitution should not be denied of construed. "He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the civil