- Thoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
- How would Thoreau view our government today?
- Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
- Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
- Take any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
Tuesday, April 29, 2014
Thoreau--Civil Disobedience (Summer Work 2014)
Respond to two of the following in the comment section:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTake any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
ReplyDeleteIn Civil Disobedience, Thoerau asks, “Why has every man a conscience, then?” This question made me think and I wanted to explore it more so I annotated, “Why have a conscience if you don't use it and you don't do what's right?” A conscience is an inner feeling/ voice that is a guide to the rightness or wrongness of one's behavior. For example, if you say something mean to someone you may hear a voice in your head that tells you that was wrong and you shouldn’t do it again. However, while it may be sad, some people choose not to listen to their inner voice and continue to do wrong things. I will admit that I sometimes do not listen to my conscience, too. After these times, however, I often regret disobeying my conscience. When I began to think about this question, split it into three questions, 1) Why do we have a conscience? 2) Why do we continue to do things that are wrong when we know we should do right? 3) How does this relate to the essay, Civil Disobedience?
1) I believe we have a conscience for reason. The reason is to allow us the ability to know from right and wrong. If we did not have a conscience we would all act like toddlers, and a world full of toddlers is not a very smart world. It would be reckless, hurtful, and unmanageable.
2) I think we sometimes do whats wrong because it is easier than doing what is right. It may be harder to what is right because the consequences may be greater, but also if everyone else is doing wrong, we may be afraid to be different and do right. Being afraid to do what is right is no excuse. I believe that if we are given the gift to have a conscience that allows us to recognize if something is wrong, we should not ignore it, we should do everything in our power to what is right. If we do not do what is right, there is absolutely no reason for us to have a conscience.
3) This relates to Civil Disobedience because Thoerau is explaining that if we do not stick up for what we believe in and what we think is right when it involves the world that we live in, there is no point to having a conscience and the gift that the conscience gives us, has no point. Thoerau believes we should follow our conscience, and not be afraid to be an individual in order to do what is right.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think Thoreau could have two sides of viewing our government.
On one hand, Thoreau would think we have to many regulations and laws that people follow even if they do not agree with them. In his essay he says people should not tolerate with laws that they did not want. However if everyone disobeyed the laws they did not want, every citizen would be thrown in jail! It is not possible to please every citizen while making these laws, because there will always be people who want to break them. Laws are laws for a reason, and that is to protect us. If we did not have a government that placed laws for us, society would be chaos.
On the other hand, I think Thoerau would be much more likely to be pleased with our government because it does have a lot of citizen power in it. We vote for our laws, presidents, and many other things. Our government does not make all of the decisions and expect us to go along with everything they want, they allow us to have some say as well. If our government did not allow us to have say and have a part in running it, many more people would rebel and society would be even more chaos. Compared to many other types of government around the world, Thoerau would be most pleased with ours.
I agree that Thoreau would be pleased. He seems to only want a government where they leave it all to the people. Which for the most part is pretty good. You're right that we have really good citizen power and that the government lets us rebel. We have to be able to rebel in order to get our point across and get what is best for us as a whole.
DeleteHowever, we can't have a world that the government lets us do whatever we want! That would be chaotic! I mean compared to what we had before this is a thousand times better. And comparing our government to the other governments out there we most definitely have the best one. I think over the years the government will improve even more.
I also agree with you that Thoreau would be both pleased and annoyed by our government. I also think that he would be unhappy with the amount of laws that are placed and the consequences of breaking those laws. I also believe that he would be happy with the amount of citizen role that is put into place within our government.
DeleteI think you are correct in saying that Thoreau would be pleased with the fact that citizens have a lot of choice and freedom with the government. I too agree that he would also be annoyed though, because of the amount of laws that are put in play. But, without those laws, we would be less likely to have such a smooth democracy. And, if a law is highly not in favor of the citizens, then as citizens we have a right to petition and get what we want. Without all of the laws that we have though, our government would be so unorganized. So, I think that Thoreau would greatly appreciate the amazing balance of freedom and rule that our government displays, especially compared to other governments out there.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI think those who break the law for the greater good are respectable and have honor. They show some laws are unjust to those of us who are blind to that. They are the light for whats unjust. They have great courage to stand up for what they believe is right. To go against all odds to show the world what you believe is the greatest thing anyone can do.
Some may believe that these who go against the law are just rebellious and reckless. The only reason they do this is to make a scene and hide behind the idea of doing it for the greater good. However, even with these possible accusations, I would break the law for a higher principle. I want to be seen as someone who stands up for what I believe in which I this is shows.
I both agree and disagree with this statement. I agree that I would break a law in order to uphold a just, and moral principle. Granted that the government has already vetoed any chance I had at doing it legally. But what if it's an immoral and unjust principle? And more than that, how can we decide if one thing is moral and another is not? One culture has a different view than another culture. I don't know how to tell someone that their views are wrong just because they do not agree with my culture.
DeleteI agree with your statement about people that stand up for what they believe in are honorable, but only to a certain extent. People that can break a law for the greater good definitely have courage, but I do believe that breaking a law says a lot about your character. That is why I don't think that I personally would break a law to uphold a higher principle because to me it's not worth ruining the character I have become. I see breaking a law as reckless depending on how severely it is broken. I think that people have a tendency to blow things way out of proportion which is where I sometimes struggle to find heroism. Overall I think standing up for what you believe in is absolutely a positive thing until it becomes imprudent.
DeleteI completely agree. I think at some point somebody has to break the law in order to change what needs changed. The founding fathers broke the kings law and without that we wouldn't have America. Some people break the law today and it is justified. People who do it for religious benefits need to. For example, priests during confession may hear an awful law broken and do not report in because they made a promise to their God and their religion. Laws may be broken for the greater good.
DeleteI completely agree as well. I think breaking a law is sometimes the only necessary thing you can do to prove a point or to get your voice heard. I think when you are justified for the right reasons, and feel so strongly about something, you can defy the government. It is a noble and courageous act, but sometimes it is the only act you can do. I think that if you have the justifications to prove your point, you should be able to, whether breaking a law or in some other form. I think standing up for what is right is a very powerful movement and can create a lot of change which can be very beneficial.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think for the most part Thoreau would be pleased with our government. We the people are much more involved with the process of elections and laws. We are able to have much more of a say than before. We have protests and groups all trying to make this a better world. Overall I think he would be happy to see the people more involved in the State.
However, he would also see the laws that have been passed even though the people do not agree with them. His whole article was about how the government should not be as involved. The people need to have more of a say than what they have right now. The government, maybe shouldn't be as involved, but needs to be pretty involved. Even Thoreau admitted they give us protection, they mostly help to make this a better world to live in. It may not be perfect but I wouldn't want to live anywhere else and I think Thoreau would be quite pleased.
Overall I would totally agree that he would be pleased with today's government. People are much more involved with everyday changes. We see that people want to enforce laws, such as littering as well. Along with creating them, like petitions. I think he is glad we have the checks and balances, so one department wouldn't overgrow and power out the others.
DeleteWe have protests to disagree with the law, however. They have good intentions but protests can also lead to violence as seen in history. With the government being involved, it can vary. I feel like the government should step in when necessary. Such as in the Great Depression how Franklin D. Roosevelt stepped in with the New Deal. I certainly agree that living here does give us freedom and he would be pleased.
I agree as well, in America today our rights have put us to where we can over turn laws that we don't like and even impeach our own president Thoreau would be very pleased with that. He'd also like that people are standing out and saying what they believe in for the good of their common people to uphold the big powerful government of today.
DeleteI think that he also would like what we are trying to do about our government. Making it so we get more of what we want and less of what they want. As an American i can also say we have more rights than most people in other countries and this is one of the looser governments than over in the Middle East. Overall i think he would be happy with us today.
Zerkle, Mia
DeleteI disagree, I think that people are not as involved as they should be. Though there are protests, they often times are protests against social things rather than protests opposing unjust laws. Our government has the same amount of power as it always has, but the people are relinquishing their own authority in light of personal entertainment. Way too many people are browsing twitter instead of pondering the constitutionality of new laws or practices.
I disagree. I can see where he would be pleased with the government but I think so the bad would out-weigh the good in this situation. Thoreau was against military involvement and taxation. Both taxes and military are a very big part of our government today. Taxes are used to fund the majority of our country. We not only have taxes on a state level, but also a federal level. Also, our military is a prominent part of our government today. We are constantly shipping our troops off to another country to help fight another battle, and I think Thoreau would be opposed to how the government is being run.
DeleteThoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
ReplyDeleteThoreau's thinking is all about being an individual and I believe he would much appreciate our first amendment. Also, our constitution was founded with the idea of freedom and a government that allows its people to have a say. However, I believe that is about the end of Thoreau's common thoughts with our founding fathers. Thoreau often talks about how the government is too involved in the people. I believe he wants the people to be more involved in the government. Our founding fathers created our legislature with the best intentions in mind and believed that they were creating a strong, but flexible government. Thoreau does not see this, he believes our government is too strong and much too involved in people. He wants to see more people speak up about things they do no believe in and have them reform a government to work only in their favor.
I also believe that Thoreau truly wants the people to be more involved with the government and not vise versa. He was very clear that our government wasnt really listening to what the people had to say and that the people were giving our opinion on what we thought should happen. They, the government, just wouldn't really listen to what we had to say. But all in all, did the government or even the people do what they talked about? I feel that we speak more of change and progress than we actually do with our actions.
DeleteI agree with you in that Thoreau want more participation in the government from the citizens. But even if more people got involved the government wouldn't listen to what we had to say so there wouldn't be any point in getting involved. So to me there isn't a point in us getting involved. I also agree with Paige when she says we speak more of change than actually acting out on the change, but most of that has to do with the fact that again the government doesn't listen to us
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe Thoreau would view our government with disgust. Our government has more power now than it ever has. We have laws regarding guns, marriage, TV, and taxes that most of us don't believe are worthwhile. Thoreau wanted us to rule ourselves with a basic government outline. We have let our government take on a very defined outline. Often times, our government sends our troops, men and women, to fight in wars that we are only partially informed of.
I believe Thoreau would immediately tell us that we need to reform our government. Tell them that they have too much say in our lives, what we are and are not allowed to do. Thoreau's views on the government were interesting and eye opening, but I believe that they are a far cry from what our government has become.
I both agree and disagree with you. I agree that Thoreau would be disgusted that there are many laws that the government has placed on us that we all do not agree with. However, it is impossible to have a law that everyone would agree with. If we would reform our laws to fit the needs or everyone, the laws would be withered down to nothing. If we had a government that did not place laws for us, our society would be chaotic and it would crumble down. Therefore, Thoreau's ideal government would not work for a population as big as ours. Our government allows us to have a lot of say, and it tries to place laws that is best for everyone as a whole. Because of this, Thoreau should be more pleased with our government than any other in our world.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would view our government with pure disgust in my opinion. He states his beliefs that everyone should stand up for themselves and not settle for something that they believe is unjust. Now a days, there are so many laws for so many different things, and although people protest sometimes, there is rarely a change. Thoreau talks about his belief that if you strongly think that something is unjust, you will be prepared to face the consequences when standing up against injustice. In this time period, people fear the consequences they will have to face, and I believe that the author would be disappointed with that. The government has become so involved in our everyday lives that it can now read our e-mails and see when we make calls. Thoreau would be displeased with this because he doesn't think the government should be this involved with the citizens; however, I think he would be disappointed in the people of the government for not standing up for our own privacy rights and facing the consequences. Overall I think Thoreau would not be happy with what has become of the government, but I also think that he would not be happy with us citizens for not speaking out against it.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI can see some points are on par with what I'd expect, however there are some scenarios where what I believe would have occurred deviates from your own beliefs. Though it is apparent that the government is prodding into our own daily affairs, which in itself is unorthodox, people fail to realize how our government system has progressed through the relentlessness of the oppressed to challenge the status quo. Over the past century and a half, we have not only abolished slavery, but created civil rights acts for African Americans, Asian Americans, and other minorities. We've established child labor laws to protect the youth from the insidiousness of cut-throat capitalism. We've legalized gay marriage in 19 states thus far. If he values moral rule over lassez-faire, then he should be pleased. However, if he is convicted that any government involvement is oppressive, then he shall be disappointed. In the text, unfortunately, his stance on the matter is anything but coherent.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI believe that the circumstances need to be right in order to break a law to uphold a higher principle. In my time right now, I can't think of anything that disturbs me so much that would cause me to break the law, but I could see instances where that may be necessary. If a day came along and something happened that I strongly disagreed with and it was utterly repulsive in my eyes, I may consider taking action against it, even though that doesn't necessarily match my character.
I believe people that do stand up for what they think is right, are good demonstrators of courage, and should be commended for that. I'm not usually one to speak out and voice my opinion, I just let things happen until i develop a strong enough opinion to defend it. People with a lot of courage are admirable people because they know what they want, and they work to voice their opinion and eventually get what they want. To sum it up, I don't think I would break a law to uphold a higher principle unless it was outrageous. I'm not one to go against my character, however I admire those with courage that are willing to stand up to make a difference.
I agree with what your saying about the circumstances must be right in order to break the law. I do agree that there really isnt anything in my life where I would need to break the law in order to achieve. Maybe someone else has a different opinion about whether they have something in there life that they just absolutely need to break the law in order to achieve a principle they have.
DeleteI definitely agree that everyone should stand up for something they believe strongly in. The people that do stand up for their beliefs are very courageous because most people wont do that in fear of something that might happen to them. I think that there are some acceptances to breaking a law to achieve a principle higher than that and yes it should be for a very good reason.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIf i felt that I needed to break a law in order to uphold a higher principle, yes I would break the law. I only feel that breaking the law is necessary if you truly believe that it needs to be broken to achieve your belief. Some principles can be achieved by not breaking the law which sometimes seems impossible but it can be done. I believe that if you have a principle that the government is blocking you from achieving it might be good to once in awhile, break that law but I don’t think it would be wise to continuously break this law in order to achieve it. Maybe if you have to continuously break the law, you should work on getting the law removed or something along those lines.
I agree that if it's to uphold a higher principle that you should stick up for it, and if need be, break the law. However, to continuously break the law might not help the person's case because the government could just dismiss it after a while. Then again, there were others who continuously broke the law so as to achieve something greater for their country. (i.e. - Mahatma Gandhi) I also agree that there are different ways to uphold a higher principle other than breaking the law. (Though its slim) For one, people can try to be civil and diplomatic about it without lashing out at the people against it and breaking the law. In summary, I would break the law to uphold a higher principle whether continuously or not.
DeleteI agree as well. If need be to keep a clear conscience to do what I think is right, I would break a law. I don't know about it being a once in a while thing, but the government should not be in our way of life that it would come to such a problematic situation. If that type of situation were to occur, it couldn't only be you to come to such a way of life. It would them be a good time to start petitioning to get the law changed for the betterment of the society.
DeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete“There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing”.
This quote was very memorable to me because it all reality, its true. We all have seen a problem in our society where we thought to ourselves “something needs to be done about this”. But did we really do anything about it? We all want to help out animals who are abused, kids who need fed, and families in poverty but what do we do to help them other than think about things we could do. The tv commercials are a prime example. We see these commercials and say how terrible it is and how sad the pictures are. But do we do anything to help those kids or those animals?
I believe that this quote fits within the context of the overall essay because the essay is mostly talking about our government and how it is. Thoreau stated many times about how our government doesn't listen to the people and they only think what they want to think. No one stands up to say what they believe the government should do so they can be more effective in our everyday lives. We all say things at home but again, do we do anything about it?
I remember reading this quote and liking it, so I am happy that you shared it. You are right to say that there are many topic in today's society that people do not do much about. We see things and just say to ourselves that change needs to happen, but don't do anything. The commercials just make people think how sad it is, but most do not donate or do anything. However, the differences in the two problems from today and then are that slavery was controlled by the government, and these animals are being helped by organizations. The slaves needed Americans help, and I am sure there were many people just sitting around saying how bad it was, and didn’t do anything out of fear because of what the government would do to them. What's the excuse today? Are we just too lazy to help, or can we not afford it financially? I agree that the quote fits in with the essay because many people did not stand up for what they believed in, and that we don't do much to help.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIn one of my classes there was a story our teacher told, and asked what we would do for the Kohlberg theory of development. The husband, has a wife that is dying. There is a medicine for her to heal however it is very expensive and cannot borrow money. However, would you: 1. Steal the medicine cause everyone has a right to live 2. Steal the medicine,saves his wife, goes to jail. 3. Not steal it, because he'll get punished. 4. Not steal it, because the druggist deserves compensation. There's all this logic behind it and why you did what you did. However, I think it would depend on why you were breaking the law, and which law. I would accept the consequences, but only if I knew I saved a life, or something similar.
Similar, Thoreau went to prison due not paying a poll tax for six years. Today, I feel like people would get charged rather than go to jail. However, he did not pay it. However-- he had written to his town clerk that he didn't want "to be regarded as a member of any incorporated society for which I have not joined." He didn't know he had to pay for it, so I feel like Thoreau went to jail for a strange reason.
I agree, when a life is in one’s hands, how desperate one might feel, especially when it’s a person one cares for deeply. Who wouldn’t risk everything for the figure that they loved? Often, when their loved one is withering away, you see the significant other in the background weeping and wishing it was them instead. In times of terror, and times of sorrow, one would trade anything so their loved one can flourish for just a tad longer, and often anything includes their own life. If the life of someone I loved was squirming between my fingers, and all I had to do to rescue them was to go to jail, I’d do it, for I’d rather the two of us live even if there’s a gate between us, than for me to be alive and be restricted by the loss of love I once had for this person.
DeleteWhen you say Thoreau was sent to jail for a stupid reason, I have to shake my head with disagreement. Thoreau wasn’t upset when he was locked in a cell, in fact he was quite the opposite as he said, “I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to climb or break through before they could get to be as free as I was. I did not for a moment feel confined, and the walls seemed a great waste of stone and mortar.” His mind was free, released from any restrictions that the government had warped around him, while he was living his normal life. No, he didn’t save a life by not paying a poll tax, but he was fighting for the values of a person’s life. By refusing to donate his money, he was portraying to society that citizens should only be responsible to pay for the concepts that they find fitting. Being put in jail allowed him to express his thoughts vocally, and announce that he was fighting for his own values and his beliefs. The cause that he went to jail for was a reason that should be respected, for he had the courage to be confined in a cell, with the goal of helping society by searing his thoughts into the world.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters is not staked. I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it to the majority. "
I really liked this quote that Thoreau wrote. Voting has a tinge of mortality to it. People may vote just for their party, or what the candidate has to say and how they fix the problems that the community has faced. All voting changes you in one way or another. Whether if it is for the president or the board for a club next year, they shift how things work. It goes on to say, that character of the voters is not staked. When we vote, it is anonymous due to bribes and intimidation. It also says " I am willing to leave it to the majority" He isn't dedicated to winning the vote, just so that he is a part of it.
I also really like the quote, and it speaks a lot of truth. However I think the second half is a bit sarcastic though. He's speaking hypothetically and he is saying that people don't care enough. There is a level of caring in which the voters care enough to vote, yes, but it doesn't extend beyond that. By "I am willing to leave it to the majority" he means that people obviously don't care enough about what they're voting for if they think it's okay to let others sway it. Thoreau was extremely passionate; he went to jail to defend what he believed in, and he kind of holds everyone else to that same standard.
DeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"...I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government..." This quote taken from Thoreau's essay is probably a voice for all the people in the United States. From what I read, the meaning of this line is that Thoreau doesn't wish for no government, but a better one. Furthermore, Thoreau just wants the government to listen more to what all the people say and not just the majority. The quote relates to the context of Thoreau's essay because the power in which the government derives from the people themselves who are being governed. In short, if the government doesn't realize that the power comes from the people, then the government can't truly become better from what it was before.
I agree. No government would result in chaos because no one would know what to do. But listening to the people's opinions on what the government should do would result in a better government. The people have the power and the government must realize that the people are the power in order to become a better government than what it is now.
DeleteI also believe the author, based on this quote and also the entire essay, was in favor of government. I think this because he knows it essential in order for a society to have the structure it needs to be organized and survive. However, the intent and how the government is run is just as important as the governments existence itself. So, not only does the government have to be set up, the government has to appeal to its people.
DeleteI completely agree with this quote and Thoreau's stand. Government plays a huge role in American's lives whether we see it or not. In America today the government tends to listen to the 1% of Americans. The wealthy. Which explains a lot in why the government is in debt today, The government should be based on the middle class and all the people under it too. Not just the richest. But unless the government listens there is no chance of improvement or even a well functioning government. This quote is what people are trying to say. Listen to our voices and the government will be better.
DeleteTake any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
ReplyDeleteOne thing that I don't get from Thoreau's essay is when he wrote, "...his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him..." The part that I don't get is who Thoreau is referring to specifically though I can guess who he's talking about. My guess is that it's God because of the word "Heaven" in the last part of the sentence. Another part from Thoreau's essay that I don't understand was this: "...'Our love or industry from doing it honor'..." Even now, I still don't quite know what this line is saying exactly except that the people's love and industry are keeping them from honoring something. (Educated guess) To put it simply, there were a few parts of Thoreau's essay that I didn't understand but I was still able to understand the main points.
In Thoreau’s quote, “Yet, compared with the cheap professions of most reformers, and the still cheaper wisdom and eloquence of politicians in general, his are almost the only sensible and valuable words, and we thank Heaven for him” Thoreau is speaking of Daniel Webster. Daniel Webster was a leading American senator from Massachusetts during the period leading up to the Civil War. He supported slavery because it was written in the Constitution. In fact, he was given the title “Defender of the Constitution”, rightly so. Throughout the paragraph, which includes the above referenced quote, Thoreau refers to Webster. Thoreau states that compared to other legislators, Webster is the most sensible one, he is passive, and fails to reform the government. He ends the paragraph with a quote from Webster, "The manner, in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration, under their responsibility to their constituents, to the general laws of propriety, humanity, and justice, and to God. Associations formed elsewhere, springing from a feeling of humanity, or any other cause, have nothing whatever to do with it. They have never received any encouragement from me, and they never will."
DeleteTo understand your second selected quote, it one must consider the entire poem. "We must affect our country as our parents /And if at any time we alienate / Our love or industry from doing it honor, / We must respect effects and teach the soul / Matter of conscience and religion, / And not desire of rule or benefit." Overall, I took this to mean, to respect the country for what is it, our love and dedication keeps us from going against it.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI believe that you can break the law if it upheld a higher principle. Yes, I would break the law if i truly thought that it was right and didn't go against my morals. I think that you shouldn't go out everyday and break the law because you don't believe it's right. There has to be some limitations when going about breaking a law or there will be chaos and the common people will misinterpret how to go about it.
It's not rebellious if many other people find that there is a higher principle and break the law as well for about the same reasons. The court would have to find another way to get people to stop breaking that law weather it would be to amend it or to take it completely out and not make it a law any more.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"the dollar is innocent" When he said that it made me think about what he actually meant. I believe that he means the dollar is innocent but the man who controls and holds that dollar can make it either a good or bad thing. He who holds it taunting the poor will make the dollar evil and then soon they will hate it for what it has done to them. He who holds it and gives to charity and donates it will make it good and have everyone be happy with the dollar the man has. It all depends on what you do with your money will make it seem good or bad, the dollar is just an innocent bystander.
I think that it goes with the text very well, it's saying that you're an innocent bystander that gets used until you finally stand up for what you believe in you're that dollar that someone uses for his opinion since you won't stand up and say yours. When you stand up for your beliefs you become the man that holds the dollar and controls what you want to do with it. Like how he said that people want to stop slavery but don't do anything to stop it, just stand up and fight for your opinion.
Thoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
ReplyDeleteA lot of what the original signers of the declaration of independence spoke are very similar to Thoreau's thinking. They both wanted the oppression of their government to end. The signers did not like the kings rule and Thoreau did not like the U.S governments rule. Thoreau felt like he was on his own when he returned from jail for not paying his taxes and the founding fathers felt the same way when they started the revolution. Their thoughts were different in the fact that Thoreau wanted little to no involvement from the government. While the founding fathers felt involvement was necessary. Thoreau had very strong views against his government, which is shown in the essay.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteHenry David Thoreau would not be pleased with the current government. He was very against government involvement and our government has never been more involved in history. He went to jail to fight the taxes he was charged and didn't pay. He would be insulted by the price the government is asking today. Thoreau wanted people to stand up for te better of America, and although some do that, there is little change in the way it is ran. There are so many tings people want to see changed and because the government does not want it, it does not happen. In fact, there are also many things we the people do not stand up for and should. Thoreau would be displeased in the government and the people for not fighting for everything we can, we are the government and should change what we want too.
I agree, but I think he would be happy a little but at least with all the new updates. We actually have rights and a voice in the government today. Although everything not fixed like taxes, society has made a huge step in the advancement of the government today. Not everyone wants the government to change so Thoreau should be happy that the government has came this far. Although ill admit it still has some to go instead of all the negative things about it, there are many more positive things. Thoreau has a point but he can't expect everyone to just have a revolution when things are going just fine. Overall I think he would be displeased, but I personally think there is no need to when the government has been much improved.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would like government a tiny bit more today. Slavery doesn't exist legally anymore and that was one of his main points in his essay Civil Disobedience. "in which the governments of those States where slavery exists are to regulate it is for their own consideration" (Thoreau). This is one of the many times he mentions slavery in his essay. He would be mad at many things still especially the inefficiency in our government now. Healthcare for example and the idea of universal healthcare has been tossed around since the days of FDR but wasn't put into effect until last year. All in all Thoreau would like the government a small amount more.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteNo I would never think of doing something like that. Many people on here commend Thoreau for going to jail because he does not agree with the government but I condemn him. What is the most effective way for change ? If you said go to jail then I don't think I could stand to have a conversation with you. The only way this method would ever work is if everyone did it. No way can I logically think that everyone will do it. Instead you should try to change it in a way that doesn't harm you but still moves you in the right direction. For example if Thoreau disagrees with slavery then instead of going to jail he should go into government and speak out against it. When Abraham Lincoln did he took steps in the right direction without being extreme. Until the union split then he saw an opportunity to abolish slavery and took it. I commend Abraham Lincoln for his deeds. I do not commend anyone for going to jail for any reason.
•Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI would not break any law to uphold a higher principle. My opinion is that people only really care about themselves, so why would I want to be the person that goes to jail and ruins my life to possibly help others. I don't mean to sound selfish but unless the outcome would benefit me greatly I would never think about doing something like that. Bedsides, if its something I would go to jail for it has to be a law for a reason and me breaking it would not only affect my reputation but others around me also. There would probably be a few people who would appreciate what I've done but for the price of going to jail I wouldn't appreciate what I've done. What's the point of going to jail if you don't get to see things change anyways. I guess its what you morally believe in but for me I would never consider doing that because it could jeopardize my future which I see very bright, and I can't be apart of my own future on jail.
I agree especially in today's world. If you go to jail today then it will be nearly impossible to do anything. Any good college would instantly reject you without looking at anything else you accomplished. Getting a job almost anywhere would be extremely hard and even if you get one it probably wouldn't pay well. As you said "There would probably be a few people who would appreciate what I've done" it's such a small gain for all the negatives. Some people may like you a little more and maybe you might start something, but you lose so much. All in all, I agree 100% going to jail is just not a smart way to change something .
Delete•How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't know for sure, there is parts of me that think he would like it, at least more then the type he had, and another part of me thinks he wouldn't like it because he personally doesn't really get to decide much. I definitely think our government is an upgrade from the one he had where you get absolutely no say in anything. I think through time people started to realize that they should get a say in what goes on and through those people who fought for that came a type of democracy. You can propose laws, that doesn't mean it will become a law, but its a chance and I think Thoreau would like all the changes made to make things more equal. Yes, some laws still seem unfair but that's what you have the bill of rights, saying you have a voice to say how you feel about that, again it doesn't mean that law is going to change but you can express how you feel which I think is great and a huge step since monarchy. I personally think that our government is fine just the way it is but through Thoreau's eyes, it could always be improved.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI would not break a law in order to uphold a higher principle. I find people who do break the law to uphold a higher principle daring but certainly not heroic or respectable. Thoreau argues going to jail serves a higher purpose and my response, to quote him is, “I have other affairs to attend to”. The business of government can always be improved, although there will never be a completely agreeable and perfect state. “It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous, wrong; he may still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it practically his support”. I do not wish to spend my days attempting to better this world if the consequences include a life of prison and disappointment. I would rather spend my time wisely choosing what I can change and accepting what I cannot. “I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad”.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would loathe our government today. He sought for a government that was made up only of conscience men and embraces the virtuous individual. “I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men.” The government today has improved, yes, but not completely the glorious state Thoreau describes in his conclusion paragraph. There have been many improvements since 1849 (e.g. slaves freed, women voting, separation of church and state, etc.). However, there are many areas yet to be addressed within the government (e.g. abortion, immigration, gay marriage, etc.). Thus, the euphoric state Thoreau imagined, is not yet anywhere seen.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteOur society is black and white, yes and no, and most importantly, right or wrong. The government has decided what is right and what is wrong, of course channeling in the opinion of the people, but they are focused on what’s going to benefit them and people like them in the end. America is jumbled with clusters of different people, of different backgrounds, or different beliefs, and there is no pleasing all of them, for everyone is independent and each one glorifies what they think is correct. The leaders of the government simply desire to satisfy their needs, assuming they will go on to benefit the nation, without realizing that by passing specific laws millions of people are dragged down because they don’t function in the same way those government leaders do. There are some laws that are passed that the government don’t realize are ineffective, and also gnaw on the success of the citizens because they seem to be boosting the prosperity of those who are similar to them. As a democracy, it is our goal to tame the government with the prospects of the people. If the government can’t fathom how the law is wounding us, we must yank off the bandage and portray the weak victim of the government’s poor decisions. Breaking the law is the most effective way to gain the attention of the government, it coerces our leaders to ponder their decisions, and revise the vicious aspects that slowly shred us to pieces.
To alter the pace of the government, I would risk being locked in prison by breaking the law, as long as it’s subtle, and it’s for a positive cause. In my eyes, it would require the law to be restricting my success and my happiness, as well as that of those surrounding me. I’d be risking what I own, to rescue the values I live for. If one were to travel back in time to the late eighteenth century to Massachusetts, a man named Daniel Shays led a rebellion to prove that the Articles of Confederation was stabbing the eminence of the nation. Despite risking his own life and that of his men, he was able to startle our government leaders from a deep sleep, which urged them to eventually create the constitution. Someone had to alter the path the government was marching on, and send them on a detour to reunite into one flourishing nation. Depending on the law, I would likely break it, only to awaken our leaders to witness the pain we were mustering through. Despite being imprisoned, I would be pleased that I had benefitted my peers surrounding me, and allowing them to scale the once unconquerable mountain and launch themselves to jubilation.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteHuman beings are supposed to be individuals, they’re created with the goal to express themselves, and to dance with freedom, not fearful of shattering the restrictions the government has locked on its people, or at least that’s what Thoreau believed, and I don’t think that’s something that can be disputed. As he was scaling his own challenges, and plunging through adventures of knowledge and emerging thoughts, he scrutinized the methods of the government, and which were successful, and which were seeping with ambition to devour its citizens, and their rights. Protecting the innocent citizens of the United States has always been a passion for the government, as if it is an anxious mother meticulously watching her fifty children, guarding them from anything harmful that creeps up behind one of them. Sometimes, the government travels too far, as it utilizes technology to spy on the citizens that may cause pain to others. Listening in on telephone conversations, and reading text messages, leads the government to list anyone who poses as a threat to our country’s grace. It’s great that they’re attempting to shield us from harm, but these are our private thoughts and feelings that we are trusting certain people to inhale, and the government leaders are not those people we trust. In my opinion, I believe Thoreau would not have been pleased with this, for that would be an intrusion of the rights of the individual people, and he was promoting a government that favors the citizens, rather than a prominent leadership where its citizens are kicked around and considered meek and worthless. From the perspective of a man who enjoyed prison because it allowed him a sense of intellectual freedom, I believe playing toy figures in the plan of the government, would give Thoreau a lack of control, a lack of control he despises, painting a picture that our government is destructive and doesn’t deserve to govern if it can’t protect our individual rights. Thus, he would loathe the government we have concocted today, and do everything in his power to halt its invasion of privacy, while finding other methods to keep us safe.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteIn a way I think that Thoreau would be proud and yet displeased on how our government has matured. Thoreau's idea of a perfect government was a society with no government and the people govern themselves. That has obviously not happened and instead the government is in the lives of all that it can reach. The people have virtually no privacy, a clear voice for all; yet we do vote, as well as our involvement in foreign affairs. Thoreau has stated that," I quarrel no with far-off foes, but with those who, near at home, cooperate with, and do the bidding of those far away, and with the latter would be harmless". This phrase goes against all that the government involves itself with in the outside world and Thoreau overall would not be pleased.
Thoreau would be enamored with the idea of the world he once knew turning into a melting-pot of sorts and no slavery among any of its people. The changes that the government have made have been for the better and changes like that will stay forever according to Thoreau. The people in this government vote on everything and no state has individual currency's or powers as they once did. People are independent, are intellectual, as well as growing into the times.
Although Thoreau would be displeased with much of our government and its intrusive ways, he would be pleased that its people are free to have a voice, make changes, and no slavery in sight.
Thoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
ReplyDeleteThoreau and all the men who signed the Declaration of Independence had alike ideas of what a government should be. The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness is the bases to all things. The signers of the Declaration wanted those who live in society to have the power to make the decisions instead of a tyrant king or a sort of dictatorship. The ideas of all being created equal and for all to have Natural Rights in society is right up Thoreau's ally. All in all Thoreau had almost the exact same ideas as those who signed The Declaration of Independence.
Although Thoreau and the signers of The Declaration of Independence were vastly similar there were some discrepancies in their thoughts. The main difference between the two would be slavery. Thoreau was against the even thought of slavery while those that signed the Declaration compensated to both sides by creating the Three Fifths Compromise. In order to keep to Thoreau's beliefs on not giving money to the government he didn't even pay poll-tax for six years. he went to jail for his belief even though someone paid his debt he didn't mind going to prison for a night, it even opened his mind further to the world around him. The signers didn't dare do such a thing and Thoreau did not agree with this part of government or society.
The signers of the Declaration of Independence and Thoreau agreed on the way a perfect government would be, which in truth would be a society with no government involved at all according to Thoreau. Their similarities start to turn into differences after this though because of the topic of slavery. All in all there were many similarities to them all Thoreau would not be considered in the same group of thinking on all matters.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would be happy yet disappointed in our government. His idea of a government is where there is no government and the people govern themselves. Well we have half of that. People have a say in what happens but we still have a government. Though our government has matured and changed for the better, it still isn't what Thoreau would've wanted our government to be. He wanted the government to be filled with men with a conscience so they would actually do things to help the country. But we don't really have conscientious men running our government. They do things that might help our nation but also give themselves more money. So really they are helping themselves, not the people of the country they are running. Thoreau would be disappointed in our government today.
Thoreau begins with a QUOTE from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
ReplyDeleteThoreau's thought on the government were very similar to those of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence. Thomas Jefferson's quote goes right along with what Thoreau thought. There should be no government and the people govern themselves. That is somewhat a democracy which is the people have a say in what the government does. The government does little in deciding what laws are passed. That is all the people's doing. I can't see any other ways in which Thoreau's thinking is different from the men who signed the Declaration.
I agree that the two shared vastly similar ideas. I agree that both wanting the minimum amount of government is the largest and most obvious trait they both share, however, I think their beliefs about their personal lives vary greatly from one another. Thoreau was against industrial and scientific advancements and thought that the only way to really live a full life was to look inside oneself where as I believe Thomas Jefferson felt that scientific and industrial advancements were important and valuable. Additionally, the transcendentalism Thoreau adopted never believed people should conform to true organized religion like the writes of the Declaration of independence did.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI definitely would, but to a certain point. I agree with Thoreau that standing up for what you believe in is more important than the repercussions that follow. More than once I've broken little household rules made by my parents because I don't like them. On the last day of middle school I dyed my hair blue because yes, I wanted to, but mainly because I didn't agree with the "no colored hair" rule made by the school system and I thought I was making a "statement". However, I think I would use a bit more restraint than Thoreau would in choosing how far to go. I've always been kind of a boundary-pusher, especially in my early teenage days, but I've always known when to stop. I could stand for a cause, very passionately, to a point, but I don't think I'd be comfortable with going to jail to defend it like Thoreau did. I would protest, fight for, and give all of my passion to a cause without second thought; however, I draw the line when my freedom and safety become jeopardized. Currently that's as far as I would go, because I don't have a cause I'm THAT passionate about to be imprisoned or endangered for at this moment. However, the thing about life is that an issue may arise that makes me change my mind.
I completely agree. It is difficult to imagine feeling the need to go against your own country because something is so wrong but I am sure there will be a time in our lives that we come across an issue that needs our help. But where is the point that we need to stop? Is it surrendering if we back down when the consequences get a bit too rich for our blood or is it being wise? Backing down would give an opportunity for people to change the way they are approaching the challenge but admitting failure on a scale this large would be worse than prison. If the world got to a point that I would need to consider breaking a law to stand for what is right, admitting failure would be a fate worse than death. The world would never change. I would at least have to try to change the world.
DeleteI agree with both you and Rachel. I said in my own response that there would be little reason for me right now to break a law. Nevertheless, I do presume that I would protest peacefully and stand up for what I think is right, especially when I think that by upholding my principles, my actions will make a difference in the world. These actions would permit me to be pleased with my ability to stay true to my beliefs. Still, there may be a time that I can not live with a law or another regulation, and therefore have to break it to relieve my conscience, but that would be an extreme case.
DeleteWhen fighting for your ideals, there are times when you need to choose between continuing to fight for your beliefs or backing down. If you have the opportunity to back down and the thought of doing this comes to your mind, you do not have a true investment in your cause. The phrase true investment implies a whole-hearted and complete commitment to your cause, and it suggests that when there is a situation or event where a regulation contradicts your beliefs, you would fight against it with all of your power, investing yourself unconditionally because you trust that your actions are right and necessary. Personally, I would only act if I knew I had this investment, dispelling the thought of backing down. However, if I did not believe that I possessed this investment, I do not think “surrendering” would be a negative choice. Perhaps, before choosing to surrender, I would take the time to consider the depth of my conviction, to see if I was truly invested in upholding my principles, and to contemplate if I must fight against the law and regulations in such a drastic manner.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"They plainly did not know how to treat me, but behaved like persons who are underbred. In every threat and in every compliment there was a blunder; for they thought that my chief desire was to stand the other side of that stone wall... As they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body".
I really liked this quote, and I felt as though I could connect with it a lot. In this quote Thoreau discusses how he was treated during his one night in prison, and interestingly enough he says "they thought that my chief desire was to stand on the other side of that stone wall". The guards thought that they could motivate him to do what they wanted because in turn, it would give him his freedom; however, the opposite was actually the case. Thoreau was perfectly content with sitting in jail, because it meant that he was defending a cause that he was very passionate about. By "as they could not reach me, they had resolved to punish my body" he means that since they could not break his spirit, they tried to wear him down physically, in the hopes that this torture and separation from society would be enough to sway his motives. This is one element of a key part in this essay: to stand up for your cause no matter what. People may try to bring you down, to harm you, to cause you pain; but they cannot truly reach your true being on the inside. They cannot take away your passion and motivation to make a change or to further a cause.
I absolutely agree with this insight you gave, and I too remember this particular part of the essay to be quite memorable. I always find it fascinating how people can seemingly jump through hoops and traverse mountains just to try and bring others down. However, if you stay strong to your values and beliefs, they can never hurt you where it really matters- in your spirit. I think this lends itself to the idea that when you are at peace with yourself and your being, you are never truly alone.
DeleteI know that everyone is different and has different needs in their life, but as human beings, we are engineered to (as a last resort) survive on our own. We have created many more problems for ourselves as we have evolved, and this has brought about the issue of tearing each other down. These days we need to be equipped to stand alone because if one day you find yourself alone in a jail cell, you may need to call on that inner spirit to pull you through. Luckily, Thoreau had already reached that inner peace and thus he remained emotionally unscathed. If we keep the power within ourselves and use it for good rather than for tearing others down, I think we would all find our time to be much more fulfilling.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau, in my opinion had fairly strong feelings toward his government. He did not believe government should have much power or control over the people it governs. Thoreau also believed that each person should be respected and have the right to stand up for what they believe in, but also challenge what they believe is wrong. Our modern government does still plays a very large part in the people’s everyday lives, which is not ideal for Thoreau. However, I think his ideas that align with our modern government in the sense that it is not uncommon for people to act and stand for what they believe is right. It is also not uncommon for laws and beliefs within the government to change based on what the people want. Social media, or media in general have been a powerful way for the people to get their opinions to be heard.
This means that Thoreau would not think our government is perfect. However, when talking about how people view their government there is always going to be aspects that in their opinion can be improved. The government of our nation for example, is divided and run by two groups or political parties. With two different sets of ideas and beliefs it is obvious that one group of people will always be upset with a decision within the government. Therefore, especially with a government like the one within the United States, it is almost impossible for someone to be completely satisfied with their government.
With that being said, I still believe that even though there would still be features of the government that Thoreau would not be completely satisfied with, I think he would at least be pleased with the people’s modern approach to expressing him or herself within the government.
I agree that Thoreau would not be 100% pleased with our government today, but would not be disgusted with it. I like your sentence, "I still believe that even though there would still be features of the government that Thoreau would not be completely satisfied with, I think he would at least be pleased with the people’s modern approach to expressing him or herself within the government." I was a good observation of what Thoreau might think of our government today.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI believe this idea is completely situational. I would most definitely break a law in order to uphold a higher principle if I personally felt it would be worth the risk. If a law was harming or completely ruining the lives of others I would for sure go against it. However, if a law was ,in my opinion, unacceptable I would not risk myself and my own life if it was only involving something as materialistic as money. I believe with every action comes a consequence. So, with each action we must decide if the action is worth of the consequence. Therefore, I would break a law if it was truly worth the consequence.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI believe that you should do everything in your power to follow your own moral values and principles whatever they may be. Little in life bothers me more than hipocrisy in its purest form- preached values that are then not adhered to by the person themselves. We are constantly being tested in our day to day lives be it through work, situations, federal laws etc. In using the word "tested," I am not utilizing it in a biblical sense, although for some, that may be applicable. I am only saying that we are consistently put in situations that take us out of our comfort zones and often force choices upon us concerning our higher principles that we would rather not have to face.
I am not saying that we should drop everything to follow some list of values we have created for ourselves. In fact, many of our values may change day to day as we grow and learn as humans. However, we must trust in ourselves to do what is right for us as indiviudals. Complications will naturally arise from this statement if you have someone who thinks it is right for them to kill other people. But for most of us, we must know ourselves so that we may know and learn from others. There is no better way to know thyself than to know thine's own values. We must keep in mind that the government is composed of individuals themselves doing their best to create a "line of best fit" for everyone's moral compass. These laws that they create should be used to help us along our paths, but sometimes, we need to stray off just a bit to do what we feel is just.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"They take too much time, and a man's life will be gone. I have other affairs to attend to. I came into this world, not chiefly to make this a good place to live in, but to live in it, be it good or bad. A man has not everything to do, but something; and because he cannot do everything, it is not necessary that he should do something wrong."
As I was reading this essay, I found many of Thoreau's points to have solid foundations, but that they were always taken a step too far. It was as though he was on the right track, but in the wrong lane for me as a reader. However, when I came across this particular point it really made me take a step back and have a broader look on life in general. It made me reflect back on any recent negative experiences I have had and how those made me feel. These feelings only compound on the amount of time spent in the actual situation. It made me realize how much time is thrown away worrying about petty things that are of no concern to us.
I know Thoreau was taking this quote in a slightly different direction however, and I still found it highly relatable and applicable to everyone. He is clearly saying that our lives are "short-lived" already, so why would we waste time on things that are not positive or that do not work towards our goals? Why would we waste one precious second on anything that we are opposed to? We simply can not afford anything that is not enjoyable because we live on borrowed time as it is. In the context of this essay, he is surely referring to the fact that we can not afford to follow laws and regulations that do not follow our moral compass. We have so many experiences to have and places to see, that any moment wasted on following something that we disagree with is a waste of energy- energy that must be redirected and shown in the form of civil disobedience.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thoreau would think our government is comparable to that of a lop-sided scale. The side with a majority of the weights( in this case weights would laws and restrictions) would be the citizens of the United States. The other side that has a much much smaller amount of weights would be the government. What Thoreau would mean by this metaphor is that the government has given us laws and restrictions, which we do not agree with and tat we do not have to abide to them. But you can't act against laws today. I do think Thoreau would be content with our government today because we do have some restrictions on the government and they do give us say in things that would affect us in a great way.
I agree that Thoreau would view the government as a lop-sided scale so to speak but in my opinion he would view it in the opposite way. I feel that Thoreau clearly wanted government at an absolute minimum and only regulate things that were absolutely necessary. I think that he would be appalled with the regulations on everything commerce to some of the personal matters of citizens.
DeleteI agree with the idea of the lop-sided scale because the people do have plenty of power, but sometimes the government tips the scale back a little. People do not always end up standing up for their cause and are not noble. Government has much power, but in the end people do have their say and keep the balance in favor of the people. I also agree that acting against laws is not civil, differing to some of the points Thoreau makes. Thoreau makes rebellion a bit different than our government allows currently and times have changed. Government overall would most likely get a decent review from Thoreau, though, in the points you picked out.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think Thoreau would be shocked with our government today mainly because of how controlling our government has become. The government controls us and monitors everyday citizens in so many more ways than was possible before. As the world has become more technologically advanced, so have the dangers of the world. With these growing threats from other nations and individual people, our government monitors things more than other countries with strict border control protocols and cameras used for monitoring traffic patterns and surveillance of stores and homes. However, the control of the government does not stop there. In recent years there has been a great deal of talk of gun laws and other social protocol such as abortion and homosexuality. As Thoreau is of the opinion that the government should not involve itself more than necessary into people’s lives, I think he would be horrified the way things have evolved and all of the control that the American government holds on its citizens.
I agree with your statement. I too believe he would die again if he witnessed our government today. Many other countries have success without as many restricting laws on certain things, such as drinking age limits, gun laws, and such, but I believe the reason America refuses to relinquish these laws, is that they would be concerned with the immediate outcome. Let me take drinking age for example. If congress removed the law, many events would occur with people drinking left and right, abusing it, dying it, and the government would freak out and so would the people. However, the government and its people should also realize that the moment you give power to a large group of people, many will abuse it. I do think the government gets too involved, and I do think people pin all their problems on the government too much, but everyone still needs to remember that they are dealing with people. Not gods and goddesses or robots or magical deities. They are dealing with people who have more power, and some abuse that power. So therefore, Thoreau would die yet again if he saw our government in it's current state.
DeleteI agree with your statement, as Thoreau is a man who bases his actions greatly on principle. As you said, Thoreau strongly believed that the government should not play a large role in our lives, and while he may or may not have an issue with two people of the same sex being married, he would not put up with it on the basis that the government is sticking it's hand into some one's personal business. Even the start of his essay quoting, "That government is best which governs least." Though he may be glad to see that freedom has expanded in some areas, I do not think that he would be truly happy, because in his words," There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly."
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI like to think that there are some things that I hold more valuable than law and that I would be able to look past regulations to stand for what I believe. However, just the thought of prison terrifies me and I cannot imagine intentionally going against everything that we as Americans are taught as young children. Going against what you know and what everyone else does is incredibly difficult and in history, we see that it takes the strongest of people to take those initial steps. Imagining that American politics would move so far away from the original intention that I would have to violate our laws in order to stand for what I believe to be right seems more like a futuristic post-apocalyptic novel’s plot line than I future I should be preparing for. I can however, imagine feeling so strongly about something that I would feel the need to disregard all of the consequences, most likely not to protect my rights but to protect the rights of someone who is too afraid or unable to stand for themselves. Those are the people America was created to take in and protect from all of the hardships of the rest of the world and if we moved so far off path that we would take advantage of the people, then I would feel the need to take a stand. I cannot support a nation that hurts its own citizens.
I agree with you completely on this. I would also like to think that if I really believed in something I would be able to look past the law and stand up for it in a way that does not break the law. The thought of going to prison also terrifies me. I would also be willing to stand up for my rights and the rights of others. It takes a strong person to stand up for what they believe in so much as to going to jail for it and I feel that I would not be able to be that strong of a person.
DeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDeleteOne quote at the beginning particularly stood out to me: "It has not the vitality and force of a single living man; for a single man can bend it to his will." The it he is referring to is the government, and I find that this statement is very true. A prime example of the government being changed by one man would be Abraham Lincoln, who changed many views on slavery and many laws, and started a war, but that is beside the point. One man changed the entire direction of the government. So therefore, so may question what the purpose of the government was when it was changed by someone so easily. I believe the author believes that the people that make up the government are too powerful over others and that less issues would occur is they were not there. He feels that each person should have the ability to do whatever they want, for it is their choice and decision. The quote itself sums up the reason and motivation behind the entire essay in one line. He basically promotes going against government reign, but within reason, but he would also be fine without a government for he believes that it is corrupt and useless. I myself believe that government is kind of important, but i do feel that the government should also focus more on the people it is governing and the issues that arise, rather than trying to best each other's political parties and such.
I think he really does rely on the government a little more than he acts like he does, because he is probably not the sort of person to survive well in an anarchy. Scholarly types like him would probably very quickly die without others to grow/catch his food for him, make a sturdy shelter and even if he could manage that, he probably wouldn't do that great in a fight if someone else wanted his food or if he got really sick.
DeleteUnfortunately, in any group of people that can work together to deal with the things I just said above you are going to have disagreements and as such need some sort of government to put rules in place and deal with those who break those rules. Basically, if he doesn't want a government he should try surviving out in the wilderness.
(Though at one point he did say he didn't agree with the people who didn't want a government, but still I agree that he kinda makes it sound like he doesn't want a government at some points in the essay.)
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteYes, I would break a law to uphold a higher principle if it was something I believed strongly about, and that the government was tainting it or something. Now, when I say I'd break the law, I wouldn't be radical and kill people and stuff. However, I would protest, aggravate, and so on if I felt that the law was unfair, and the feeling was strong enough. Personally, I dislike the government's attitude towards elections and laws because the main thing on their mind is the power of the other political powers. The only time it seems to me that people get changes done that need to be changed is when they start disobeying the government. Then, the government shuts up for a minute and actually focuses on the people, instead of their salaries and power. If the people you govern and that you restrict so much ask for you to stop, and you want to maintain your job and lifestyle, you better fix your issues. I would definitely break a law if it felt strongly enough about it, and if I felt the government was not lifting a finger to help. However, I would prefer to not break laws and would rather the government work out its problems.
I really agreed with much of what you said about holding principles closer to you than the law and how you would approach this suppression. I also can see a lot of truth from what I didn't state in my answers. I believe that what you said about the government's concern for it's politics more than the people it governs was very sad yet true. But I think it is sad that you think the only time the government cares for it's people is when we riot or strike. I find that this is the only thing I do not agree with in your answer. Overall, I agreed with your answer and liked what you said.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteIf Thoreau were alive in the present, he would have a mental breakdown once he saw how our government operated. Thoreau would be immensely disappointed with the fall his country took. Our civilization is constantly observed and controlled by the government these days. Thoreau would be completely appalled if he saw how much accessibility the law has in our daily lives. Government interferes with our lives on a daily basis more than once. They have an overwhelming grasp over this country and it will only continue to expand it's range and force as time advances. That is the reality of our society in this country, and I doubt that Thoreau would be able to comprehend what the future has come to. In his perspective, the country is on the brink of an apocalypse. He would probably be back in jail for trying to put his principles before law, but no change would develop. Our community has been too melded with it's government. If our nation was to suddenly go to the way Thoreau wants it, then America would fall.
You are right. The government tries to control every aspect of our lives. We have probably gone to far to recover from this intense grasp. The only way we could have some redemption is if the people and politicians did not vote on party lines. If the people and politicians would vote on their own beliefs then the ideas of the people could come out and start to limit the control of the government. Thoreau's ideas could not change America immediately but it would have to be a gradual change.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIf I had truly worshiped a principle that had been suppressed by the government, then I feel that I would commit treason against the law. I would not approach my treason with extremist intentions or murder, but a more peaceful approach, such as a sit down. History has many occurrences where people rebelled against laws for censoring ethics. Successful change has also been proven in the past by major people, such as Gandhi or Martin Luther King Jr. These people had spread their influence so well that it changed their country and future for the better. If I had the same dedication as them to whatever my principle may be in that scenario, then I too would be able to change my life for improvement. Even if I knew I had no chance to persuade others to join my side and change the law, I would still break the law for my principles. Why should it matter if others agree with my principles or not? They are my life-style choices and I do not need other people to agree with me. I will fight for what I believe in if I am truly dedicated and even if no one agrees with me. It is better to have true faith in your beliefs and neglect what law may interrupt that belief than to sit back and not act. That is no way to live in society. No one should be unhappy by their basis being prevented by government, unless the route or effect disrupts the safety of civilization and if that person only does it on a whim.
I completely agree. In order to make the government see past their massive ego, is for someone to make a dramatic stand in order to get their attention. Even if they still don't agree, it would give them something to think about, and if more and more people begin to join you in this massive stand, maybe the government would begin to see the light at the end of the tunnel that all of the protesters already see. I also agree with you on the idea of not making an impact that threatens lives, but take it slow and with caution, not trying to ruin any ones life. All in all, you make a great point, and one that i totally agree with.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI would not break a law to uphold a higher principle. As I see it the only effective way to cause change successfully is to operate through the government and institutions already in place. To be successful you would need a large group of followers that are willing to make sacrifices for your cause. If you break the law before obtaining a massive following, however, you will be labeled as an extremest or something similar and make it much harder to win over the masses because people will be hesitant to associate themselves with a group that many people would associate with law breaking.
I totally agree with you. I would not break a law in order to uphold a higher principle. the only way to do it is to do what you said and change successfully through the governement and institutions in place. Also I would do as you said and bring a group of followers that are willing to make sacarfices for my cause. But breaking a law or laws would help no situation what ever it may be.
DeleteTake any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
ReplyDeleteWhile reading Civil disobedience I wondered how Thoreau ever imagined it possible for a government to rule by conscience rather than majority. In theory, a government ruling in this manner would be very good, but deciding what is morally correct and what is not is such a subjective question that it would be impossible in practice. Everyone under the power of the government would have to decide what is morally correct and to do decide they would ultimately have to revert back to majority rule. Additionally, if somehow there was a system of conscience rule in place that allowed the minority of the population to rule, the majority could simply overthrow them by physical force. It would be impossible to ever establish a conscience rule of government.
I had the same exact question actually. The whole time while reading this I thought about how he thought that to have a fair government we didn't need to have a majority vote. Everyone does decide what is right to them and ultimately votes on it and the one with the most votes is what gets chosen because it pleases more people. I agree with all of this, I'm glad someone pointed it out
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI feel as if Thoreau would be pleased with certain parts of our government while being disappointed in others. For example, I feel as if he would not be pleased with all of the laws that we have and that if you break the smallest one you will be fined or thrown in jail and possibly both. However, I feel that he would be pleased with us voting on every law and official that is put into the government. I also believe that he would be disappointed in how controlling our government can be and the close eye they keep on every citizen. Thoreau would probably have many mixed feelings about the way out government is run, and the people that are put in charge of it.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete" Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it."
I feel as if Thoreau was trying to say that everyone's voice should be heard when it comes to government. That a person should state what kind of government he or she would be happy with and that one should respect those who voice their opinion because that would be one step further into making their role in the government. This quote goes with the essay because Thoreau wrote the essay to state what kind of government he believes should be put into place, he made his opinion known. This quote delivers the message of his essay to readers from the start. He believes that a government should be citizen run and that citizens should be able to state their opinion without getting trouble and this brings across that message in a nice way.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thoreau would be disappointed in our government today. I say that because our government is more invovled with us more then ever before. Thoreau would not be pleased by if a person would break the smallest law in the book and that the person would have to go to jail or to prison over a very small law that probably does not affect people. He would also be dissapointed on how the government can do whatever they want and we would not even know that it took place. But he would like that we the people get to vote on laws and every law that gets put into the government.
"How would Thoreau view our government today?"
ReplyDeleteWhen I fist read this question, I immediately thought that Thoreau would be quite disappointed in our government today, but after further thought, I believe that it would be all up to his core preferences. One could view that our government gives us as people a lot of power. You could also say that this power is almost "faked", because we are constantly being monitored by the government. For instance, Thoreau would be quite pleased during presidential elections, and how we as a people are able to vote on our president, but after hearing about the few elections where the candidate with fewer votes had won because of the electoral college, he would not like that. Like I said, I think Thoreau's liking of our government all depends on his core preferences.
"Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?"
ReplyDeleteIf I believed in something firmly and truly thought it was necessary to uphold a higher principle for our country, I would 100% break the law, and I think that it is our job as citizens of this country to do so. America was created on a pile of treason and rule breaking, and look at us now. I think many people share their thoughts with me, and I there is something that is currently illegal, but will improve our country, we would band together as a country to get that done.
I definitely agree with what you are saying. Not that it justifies anything today, but I like how you mentioned "America was created on a pile of treason and rule breaking", just because it's harsh but true and a lot of people forget to remember that. I mentioned in my essay how people such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King, Jr. made a difference by breaking rules in hopes of change for the better. I think, like you said, that the best way portray an idea or belief is to have people compound together to show that more than one person has the same belief and should come together in our country.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteIf Thoreau were to look at the American government as we see it today, I believe he would disagree. I the essay Thoreau concludes by saying, “Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man?” With this quote the author is saying that in order to receive a better form of government in which mankind has more freedom, we would have to look past democracy to a whole new undiscovered kind of government. As the United States is a democracy, in the eyes of Thoreau, our government would not pass his approval. Later in the essay Thoreau explains, “There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly.” I read this statement and think that the author believes that there will never be a perfect government, unless the people who make it up, all have the same thoughts and feelings about everything that is in existence, their government will not be perfect. All in all, if we would go on living in the same government day by day and not doing anything to change it, I believe David Thoreau would disapprove.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteThis is a difficult question to answer. My answer would be yes and no, for a couple of reasons. In one situation in which something is obviously not correct and the government is making a mistake with their ruling or the way they perceive something to be, then yes I would break the law to show them that what they are doing is wrong and that they should fix it. On the other hand, I would not just go walking down main street committing felonies willy nilly. Their would have to be a justifiable reason for me to break a law in order for me to go through with it.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThe government of today is filled with corruption and deceit. People of the world are constantly sucked into it as though it is a trap. Government is very controlling and strikes fear and control into many. The ideas of Thoreau and his essay would tend to be the same about our government. He dislikes the power and control, and feels as though men should walk as their own and be a man unafraid of government. Thoreau also would not appreciate the ideas of people absorbed and suckered by government. Thoreau believes in a community of individuals with strong and confident beliefs, not the beliefs of giving yourself over with doubt and discontent. The government of today would strike Thoreau with a poor image and an image Thoreau would not appreciate nor follow. Government is always in control, and control is not what Thoreau sees as the most powerful aspect.
I agree with your opinion on the government's taut grip it has on its people however wouldn't you agree that a government of some sort is needed to uphold a well working society? Is it not fact that in Thoreau's essay he stated that "That government is best which governs least."? I agree with your statement of him being displeased with the government of today but do you truthfully believe that Thoreau would want to abandon all means of authority?
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIn most circumstances I would not break a law to uphold my principle at first thought. I would most likely be thinking of myself and my consequences at risk. My thoughts become so selfish and self-centered to think about my own life before I think of the impact that could develop if an opposite decision is made. When I think about decisions i make, they are usually to benefit myself and possibly a few others. But, I never thought making a decision that does not seem to impact me well could impact many others and myself in the long run. Breaking a law for a higher principle is not a crime, it is a duty and a statement. Standing up for a noble cause is always worth the risk of a consequence. In the end a crime is really not a crime, but the way you see how things should be. Higher principle is a greater motivation than no principle at all or simply thinking for your own good.
I completely agree with the statement here. I too would have to think about myself maybe a little more than the other people around me. But I would break the law because it would end up being the right thing to do. I agree that doing this is not breaking the law, it is a duty.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteThroughout reading this essay, I contemplated whether or not I would break the law like he did, therefore I like this question. At first it almost seemed like a given, yes I would because there needs to be change. But, over time I thought about what I would be risking, and then thought no. Our government is one that does make changes that the people don’t like, but is that just people being difficult because they don’t like who is in charge? When a leader of the country makes a law, most of the people who are not in that leaders political party immediately disagree with what they did. Therefore, I would have to make sure what I was revolting against was really what I believed was wrong, and was really doing a huge amount of harm in the country, and not what others thought was wrong. But, unless the case was very extreme and the government was hurting many people, no I would not break the law to uphold a higher principle. I would not want to risk my family and my own life, but I would only if it was really a necessary thing to be done. Thoreau said that we as people worry about government hurting us, our families and taking away our property if we revolt, and that we need to anyways, no matter how hard it is. I think that for me it would be too hard to risk my family members lives, therefore the decision can not be made lightly. The only way I would break the law to uphold a higher principle is if it was a really dire case, and it was what I believed needed to be done.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete“ Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.”
For a just person to be just, in Thoreau’s mind, they must end up in jail. I think that this is very interesting, since we see prison as a place for only unjust people to go. Murders, thieves, kidnappers, those are usually the people we think belong in prison. But, he is saying that people who are, in my mind, the better people should end up in jail, as it is one of the only free places in the unfree country. These just people are the ones who should be able to see a change that is necessary to make, and make the change, by breaking the law. He is saying that the government will throw almost anyone in prison for almost any reason, and therefore the just should be breaking laws and should go to prison for it. While Thoreau loved being in prison, I am not sure if all just men would, especially today. However, I think that this quote fits in with the whole essay because Thoreau is begging us humans to make political change, and the only way to do that is by breaking the law in his mind. He says that the true place for a just man is in prison because in prison you are free from the government. Going against the government will get you in prison, so this is why Thoreau thinks that prison is the only place for a just man.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIt depends on what is meant by a higher principle. If the higher principle is something I believe in then yes. But I would usually be able to risk to make that kind of change. But there also comes a point where you have to think for yourself. So I began to think that it really depended on what that principle was. I thought about how I would affect myself in that situation too. But then I thought about right from wrong. I realized that the more important thing is doing what is right. So, if the law I had to break would end up being the right decision, then yes I would break a law to uphold a higher principle.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteYes, absolutely. I am absolutely sure that if I believed in that higher principle enough (and there wasn't extenuating circumstances like hurting someone else in the process etc) and it was helping people overall. I know that it probably sounds kind of arrogant to say that I know what I'd do before I was in that situation, and I will acknowledge that but I think I would have a hard time living with myself knowing I had an opportunity to stand up for something I truly believed in and was too much of a coward to do so. (Not meaning to be rude to anyone who has different views it's just I tend to be hard on myself about that sort of thing, so sorry if that seemed rude it really was not meant to be)
I'm probably kinda weird but I might as well touch on this, I kinda believe that everyone should find something they really believe in, some cause or whatever just something that they can believe in. It doesn't really matter what whether it be LGQT+ rights, helping homeless people, helping the environment, helping animals, finding a cure for some disease, fighting for civil rights for some group, or educating kids. The important thing is that you helped make something a little better for someone, you know? But I think that is part of really growing up is taking a stand on something you believe in. It doesn't have to be helping in huge ways necessary, just making sure to volunteer or give money to the cause and be well educated about it and of course protesting or signing petitions etc when necessary. Depending on what it is you may even be able to get a job to get paid helping people, like being a doctor (esp. If you can volunteer medical care to people that may not be able to afford it) or researching or inventing something (like helping make things so people in wheelchairs can have greater autonomy (like those cool chair things that you sit on and they move up the staircase)).
I just want to say because I can that though I probably wouldn't done the same in Thoreau's place (because that isn't the thing that I really strongly believe in) I do respect him and his decision and agree that he should have done just what he did because he strongly believed in what he was doing. I mean what is the point in life if you never have something that stirs your emotions to the point of risking something, you know?
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think Henry Thoreau would be on both parts of the spectrum of happy and angered with how our government runs today. He says, "I heartily accept the motto,'That government is best which governs least' ". I don't think he would be quite pleased with the large amount of laws created since his time, along with how strongly the government is playing a role in our everyday lives. But then again, times have changed and there needs to be more structure to prevent chaos. I would like to believe he would understand that seeing how our world is today, things are a lot more complicated and advanced. I do believe he would be happy to see the stance people are taking for their rights, though. People everywhere are beginning to show their opinions and what they think is needed and fight for it; whether they have a group of support or not. I think Thoreau believes strongly in wanting what you want, no matter what, and would be quite happy with how people are fighting and supporting just that in many ways all over the world.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle
ReplyDeleteNow this is a question that has a lot factored into it, such as consequences, reputations, others welfare, etc. I will the be the first to stand up for what you believe in and if you feel so strongly about something, then go for it. That doesn't mean you need to go into it without some logic. I would have to make sure that my family and friends were not endangered with my decision and ask myself whether it would have a outcome that I was willing to see as the best choice. If I strongly believe what I was doing made a difference that I believed in, then I would certainly break the law to uphold to a higher principle.Sometimes breaking the law created a better outcome that helped many; Martin Luther King, Jr.,Rosa Parks, Gandhi, just to name a few. Sometimes something needs to be done for the common good. I feel it doesn't need to be drastic or crazed, but just you fighting calmly for what you feel is right and just.
How would Thoreau view our government today
ReplyDeleteThoreau would be appalled with our current government since it goes against nearly everything that he believed would make an efficient government. Our government today is selfish, greedy, and in this day in age, you cannot find anywhere in the news of our countries officials doing or creating anything that gives aid to its own citizens. The majority of the programs and policies put in place have caused the citizens of this era harm and only brought reward to individuals that put the new policies in place. However Thoreau would also recognize that the founders of the government did not labor under the notion that the government they created would be sterling. Thoreau was aware that the U.S. government would fall short of their lofty expectations because even conscientious people will on occasion abuse the power of their offices. While everyone can agree that such abuses ought to be weeded out, it is unrealistic to expect that they can be, for if it were attainable, then there would be no need for government at all.
Thoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
ReplyDeleteThoreau thinks practically in the same way as the people who signed the Declaration of Independence. Their similarities align because they both believed in the principle that the government must maintain their distance from the people. The signers of the government and thoreau both agreed that it is nearly impossible to keep control of an entire country without ruling it in some manner. However the founders didn’t understand that the will to maintain a well working government, is much much weaker than the craving of power from one of their own officials. The signers didn’t foresee themselves forming into the power hungry, mask wearing, drones that they were viewed as in the public eye. It was when the signers of the document transformed into the beasts previously described that they parted views from Thoreau. Thoreau watched as these esteemed officials turned into low lifes and thus realized that no matter how great the preposition of a man is, that same well mannered citizen will turn into a power hungry beast. He was able to recognize that the government is so "abused and perverted" that it no longer represented the will of the people. He also believes that it isn’t the government that developed the country, but the will of its citizens that were able to educate its children or to expand its horizons.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think Thoreau would be angry with our government. Thoreau would be angry because the government controls many aspects of our lives. Thoreau said many times throughout the essay that the best government is the government that governs the least or not at all. Some aspects the government controls are things we can buy and can't. How old people must be to do things like vote. The government even controls businesses through regulations and extreme fines. Thoreau would be angry at the people and the government for not heeding his words.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIf higher principle is myself and my beliefs then yes I probably would. If I had to get somewhere fast I would break a lot of the traffic laws. I would speed, run stop signs, and probably drive like a crazy person to get to where I needed to be. If I had a fire arm and I was not allowed to bring it some place but I felt I needed it to protect myself from other people. I would still bring it. If it could protect myself and others from something like a crazy gunman I would use it. It would save more lives than would be lost. It may seem like some paranoid or selfish reasons but I would live how I want. Also I do not own anything dangerous so no red flags please.
The thing I like about this post is that it is very exact and to the point. You know exactly which conditions would make break a law, and you point out the situations clearly. I think the way I would "sum up" this post is that you would break the law in a drastic circumstance. Whether it be an emergency where you have to rush someone to a hospital, protect yourself and others from a violent individual, and just protect people, your motives are clear: you would break a law if the law hindered the safety of you and those around you.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI would not break a law in order to uphold a higher principle. I would not because breaking a law would do nothing to benefit you. It would just make you go to prison and me breaking that law did not change a thing.
But would I would do is get a group a people that supports me and do protest and go into congress and try to fight what I am fighting for. Doing in that way is much more professional and more mature. Doing it by breaking a law would not change a thing it would just get me in jail.
I agree with you. Repeatedly breaking a law will not prove anything, besides the fact that you disagree with the law.
DeleteA better course of action would be to form a committee with a group of people who agree with your ideals. Come up with an alternative to the law you disagree with, and talk to a senator or representative and ask them to write a new bill, to be put on the ballot.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnuts fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man."
I love this quote for many reasons. It struck me when I first read it because it so true for human nature. Human nature is a cut throat society composed of beings that will do anything for self-betterment. I think the quote shows this substaintially because the chestnut and the acorn are brought together in the same way men are, we grow up and then try to become as successful as humanly possible, all the while, not concerned with how others are doing. As human beings, it is only natural to work to better yourself to being an extraordinary person, even if that means depleting the opposite person. I think the same is true for the government, as the author was trying to portray. The government, though powerful and everlasting, is extremely cut throat. It works as hard as it can to try and make everything work out, but in the end, it may not always be that way. The government tries to listen to the people, but most of the time it goes off of what it truly believes to be right and just. I love this quote because it truely captures the truth in human nature.
I agree with you completely. It definitely represents how society functions today, and how it will always function because of the natural desire in humans to be the best and most successful. Although this quote could be perceived as showing humans as selfish human beings, I do not think that is what it is saying, nor do I think the desire to be the best is selfish either. If humans did not have a want to be the best and do everything to the best of their ability, we would have no medicine or technology today because no one would care about who achieved these things first. The desire to complete these goals before another person makes finding the solution a lot faster, which in turn, helps more people. It is good for every human being to act in this way, but when whole governments have this mindset, the wants and needs of the people become discarded. I think that the government should definitely try to fix this "cut throat" way of doing things into a genuine goal to please their people.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteThis question is difficult to answer, but I find it very intriguing. To break a law, and cause civil disobedience is a very sticky situation. On one hand, you can chose to believe that if morally justified a law can be broken to prove a point. Breaking a law to prove a point can be a very beneficial and very powerful stand. It also can cause social chaos and can cause civil unjust. Breaking laws is something that happens everyday, breaking a law to prove a point is very important, without a drastic show of civil disobedience the government may not be as inclined I change the laws. For example, when looking back into history, the founding fathers broke France's laws and without it, we would not have America. If the African American people had not stood up for their rights, and constantly rejected the government, we would not have the racial equality that we have today. Without civil disobedience, and without people to break the laws, the people under the government would not change the laws. I would break a law, if it was something important and morally justified, but who are we as American citizens to say what is morally justified and right? I think under the right circumstances, breaking a law is something I would do.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think Thoreau would like parts of it, and dislike other parts. Our government today is very complex and very powerful. I think Thoreau would like that people do vote on a lot of issues and can elect people to represent them. He would also like that a lot of the unjust laws we had, have since been amended. However, he would not like that fact that the government has a lot of power over people. Thoreau says a "government is best which governs least" and unfortunately that does not apply to our government today. In the U.S. today, many people describe the United States as having a democracy, but technically the U.S. has a federal republic government. So the people do not have all the power like in a democracy, and does not fit the description of the government Thoreau thinks is best; one that governs the least.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"Government is at best but an expedient; but most governments are usually, and all governments are sometimes, inexpedient."
I think this quote means that at best, governments are practical, useful or beneficial, however, all governments are sometimes not practical, suitable, or advisable. I think Thoreau is trying to say that governments all have their faults and do not always make the just, moral decision.
This quote fits within the context of the overall essay because Thoreau didn't pay his taxes (an act of civil disobedience) in protest of slavery. The Government at that time was unjust and immoral because nothing was being done about slavery. The inexpedient government was the whole reason for this essay.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them; who, esteeming themselves children of Washington and Franklin, sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing" This quote was memorable to me because I think a lot of people often see others that want to make a change but either do not speak up or don't know exactly how to make that change. Thoreau would be greatly disappointed by this. He believes that every person should stand up for what they believe, even if their belief is against the government. This quote fits within the context of the overall essay because as stated above, Thoreau encourages everyone to fight for what they believe in, even when it is sometimes easier to just go along with the rule or law because it is an act of the government. But, I think that Thoreau would also be pleased that in modern times, more and more people are starting to practice what Thoreau believed all along. More people, especially the youth, are standing up for what is right, not only concerning the government, but also in schools and in the cities we live in.
Thoreau begins with a quote from Thomas Jefferson–"That government is best which governs least." In what other ways in Thoreau's thinking similar to those who signed the Declaration of Independence? Can you see any ways in which his thinking differs from theirs?
ReplyDeleteI think his thinking is similar is many ways to those who signed the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers of our country wanted the basis of laws and principles to be based on the wants and needs of the people. Throughout Thoreau's essay, he explains that a government that does not acknowledge or listen to their people's commands, will not succeed. They also stood for the right for people to protest what they think is not right for their country, or for them. Thoreau practiced the act of protesting throughout his whole life because he did not believe he should have to pay some of the taxes that were asked of him.
In some ways though, Thoreau did have different views than the founding fathers. Although they did support protesting, they did not support the idea of not paying taxes that had been given to everyone fairly. Thoreau did not have a specific reason for not paying the taxes other than the genuine feeling that he did not want to feel owned by the government, and also didn't see the need to give away his money. Although in some ways, Thoreau did not live his life the way the founding fathers may have desired him to, they still had many of the same ideas and opinions, which shows that all people in this country are on the same page, they just want to be heard.
Take any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
ReplyDeleteMy question/ observation comes from this quote stated by Thoreau; "...break the law. Let your life be a counter-friction to stop the machine." As I thought more about this quote, I realized that if you life your life completely to stop the government, then you wouldn't enjoy any of life's simple pleasures. Thoreau thinks that one should always fight for what they believe, and I agree with this too. But, if you are constantly fighting the government on laws and rules, then you would never experience true happiness. And I guess that is my answer to my question as well, which is, how does one reach happiness if they live their life in disagreement with the law, and did Thoreau perhaps go too far in saying that one should live their life to "stop the machine?" I think that if you are constantly finding a way to disagree with everything, then you will be too focused on that then what life's true goal is for the normal person: happiness. I think that Thoreau was too aggressive in the quote stated above.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI do believe that I would break a law for this purpose because if there is the need to break a law to make sure that your needs and moral standards are met, then obviously there is a serious problem with that being a law. Like Thoreau reiterates throughout the entire beginning of his essay, you must be satisfied with the world you are living in. If you are not, then that world is unjust and you must find someway to fix it, whether people are going to back you up or not. I would be willing to break the law to make sure my happiness was fulfilled, and also the wants of others because there would have to be at least one other person in the country that had the same worries and speculations as I. And when there are many unsatisfied people in a country, then it is no longer a "democracy" as we call ourselves, so that would definitely have to be brought to attention by possibly breaking a law.
I agree completely with Natalie's response to this question. Clearly if the government has a law that could prevent one from seeking fulfillment in their life then it should be appropriate to break the law. However there is a fine-line between good and bad reasons to break the law. If one person believes they will not be happy unless they kill their ex-girlfriend's fiance then clearly the law against murder is there for good reason, because that is bad. So I do believe there are conditions to the question of breaking the law, but in the case of upholding a higher principle, I agree with Natalie that it would be appropriate to break the law.
DeleteI totally agree with this! If a government was so out of wack that you have people breaking laws then you obviously aren't picking up what the citizens are putting down, and that is when everything gets chaotic. I liked what you said about it no longer being a "democracy" because it is so true. Under these conditions there are going to be riots and rebellions that should make the government start to think twice about what they are enforcing and about the laws the are passing. In my opinion, if the law doesn't satisfy the people of the country then it shouldn't even be worth passing.
Deleteow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteFrom the progression of the 1840s, when the government was still underdeveloped, to the 21st century, government, there has been a significant transition of understanding of the relation between the government, and the people. Historically in the 1840s, the government, needed a rapid amount of change, from the earlier systems, of monarchy, and earlier violent protests. They needed to take on account everyone's needs for freedom, education, suffrage, money, settlement, etc. The government earlier, was disorganized, but with experience, it had substantially improved over time. Henry David Thoreau, would be pleased that there has been a conscious effort, to minimize the brutality, and increased amount of attention from the government, towards the majority of people. However, one thing the government has lacked both in older society, and modern society, was that most of the powerful individuals, the majority had selected, had not developed their personality enough to make decisions for others. Modern Society today, still lacks the right character to define the good from the bad yet still. Many evils are constantly committed in this world. We continue to harass our resources that Mother Nature has given to us. While we are living in a highly refined, materialistic, and Westernized society, we should not make the careless decisions to waste what we have been given, and violating our privileges we have been given on this Earth. The primary form of decision making, lies completely from within the man's character The government should be more wiser to control man's arrogance, and they must be strong inside as well.. Ultimately when each individual's character to discriminate between right and wrong is recognized, then the government, won't fall apart, so easily. That is the key to a "better government".
• Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI personally, would risk anything, if anything was holding me back, for a higher purpose, for my self-attainment, and realization. Laws are used typically to maintain things and manifest the flow of life, in a positive direction. If a law was set to create disharmony towards bashing out moral codes, and more significant purposes, rebellious action, in the right meaningful way would be the best action to take in that moment. For example, in times of history, to break free, of coercive rule by King James, the colonists, disobeyed his tyrannical force, and acts, and with the outcome of the war, they were finally able to gain independence. Imagine what would have happened if we were under British rule today. Emerson quotes, " Let you life be a counter-friction to stop the machine". If you are determined to prevent further evils from arising, and when speaking, if injustice will be brought, so be it. At desperate times, we need to take desperate measures. This is what is classified as right action. If I felt a law was unjust and unfair in school, I would go forward with my own motivation, not cowardly fear, and petition for the right cause. I would never have any regrets about it. We are living in a capitalist economy, and democracy. Every voice is often heard, if we take the action in standing up. We can always raise ourselves, no mater what position we are in.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteThroughout his essay, Thoreau expands upon the fact that our laws aren't just enough to reach any higher principle. He believes that our government fails to let men "spring and grow and flourish as best they can." We mustn't let that stop us from doing so.
I will not say that I am as willing to break a law as Thoreau was, but I will say this: If your full potential as an independent human cannot be met due to a law, then like Thoreau, I say, "break it." By this I do not mean rob a bank or run every red light on the street. It can be hard to find the fine line between what's just and unjust in our society, but they have rules made for us so that we don't break it. We all have values we've set for ourselves, from whatever influence. Some may stay true to these beliefs throughout their entire lives and some may change what they believe from day to day. But we should never feel that we have to go against our true, inner convictions in order to be an "agent of injustice."
In some cases, breaking the law is like a petition, however, with one additional component – it is deliberate “action” on the part of the law breaker to show the “powers that be” the actual chains that bind individuals and limit our true freedom. It takes a courageous person to risk a lot of what he or she has to set a new line of justice in his or her society. It hurts for me to say, but I would be one of those who “sit down with their hands in their pockets, and say that they know not what to do, and do nothing.” And this is truly unfortunate because “it takes a village” in order to affect the kind of societal change that Thoreau addresses in his work.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete“But Paley appears never to have contemplated those cases to which the rule of expediency does not apply, in which a people, as well as an individual, must do justice, cost what it may. If I have unjustly wrested a plank from a drowning man, I must restore it to him though I drown myself. This, according to Paley, would be inconvenient.”
I found the word "inconvenient" to be very interesting. Convenience is the suitability to a need or purpose. Most would find that the choice most morally correct would be to punish the murderer with death itself. But wouldn't that make society guilty of the same crime?
This controversy was something Thoreau hadn't mentioned before in his essay. The author had recognized that the government was at fault when they built laws that held citizens too securely. It fascinated me when he brought up another side to this issue. To what extent can we discipline without stooping down to the offender's level?
As Paley said, it would be very inconvenient to have to chase around the true culprit. So what exactly do both Thoreau and Paley want to see us change? Again, it's inconvenient to face this kind of problem. The easiest way to establish an answer would be to start with the laws themselves.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteWhile the ideal answer to this questions would be "absolutely", I would have to say I would conditionally. If the principle would be to maybe protect someone I care about, then I would do anything as long as no one else would be hurt. But say I was mad about a new law that was created. Maybe that law was censorship. While censorship is wrong, and people have a right to be heard, I see no reason that I should stick my neck out for their benefit. As in Thoreau's essay, people will put up with small evils. As horrible as it sounds, a violation of rights is less wrong than unjust punishment. However, I acknowledge that their are people who don't see life worth living unless they live lives of complete freedom. Even a whisper of their rights being taken away is enough to rile them up. People like that are good, as there is a slippery slope when it comes to which evils are tolerable. People need to be protected completely, and to have their own rights cemented.
I completely agree with you. One part of me just wants to say yes i will. But in reality we all have things that the government have done that anger us but will I break the law because I'm unhappy or angry. No. I would break the law to protect someone that I love because you are doing it for the right right reason. That reason is that you are sticking up for someone you love and something that you believe in.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteFor starters I think he would be frustrated with some things, such as the government shut-downs we have because people cannot agree or negotiate. Overall I believe the problems he wrote about in his article are still present in today’s government. One of the frustrations Thoreau had with the government was that selfish men controlled it. “If one were to judge these men wholly by the effects of their actions and not partly by their intentions, they would deserve to be classed and punished with those mischievous persons who put obstructions on the railroads.” Unfortunately no matter how great presidential candidates seem to be, the ones we elect to office will still make poor decisions. Anyone we put in a position of power will disappoint us to an extent. In order to have the kind of flawless government Thoreau wants we would have to have God himself as president.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDeleteI chose the quote, “Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence”, from Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience because it is an inspiring quote. Something I loved about reading Thoreau’s article was how passionate he was about what he was writing. The quote is expressing to put everything you have into what your working for. Thoreau was an example of this himself, “I have paid no poll-tax for six years”. He was arrested because he felt so strongly against paying the tax. This is a common throughout the article.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI feel as though Thoreau would not approve of our government today. The United States' government is large very active in both national and international affairs. As Thoreau agreed with the quote "The government is best which governs least", I think that our very involved government would go against his ideals.
That being said, I'm sure he would prefer our capitalist ideals over the socialist governments of North Korea and China, which are very controlling of their economy.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDeleteThe quote I chose was "All machines have their friction". In this statement, Thoreau is simply saying that nothing is perfect. No matter how ideal something may seem, it is going to have its flaws, it's a part of life. This quote relates to our government because no matter how many times we have practiced it, even more than 200 years after we installed it, our government is still far from perfect. We can try it for another 200 years, but we will never have a completely perfect government.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"There are nine hundred and ninety-nine patrons of virtue to one virtuous man."
Henry is pointing out the obvious, that you'll find more followers of something than the one person who lives what they believe in. Although most everyone has something they believe in, such as ending poverty, few will dedicate their lives to ending poverty. What separates that one man from the patrons would be the degree of dedication to his cause. What Henry means to say is that it's one thing to give partial attention to something, but a completely other thing to make that one thing your priority. Nearly everyone would agree that war is bad, yet few work to end wars.
When it come to the government Thoreau is pointing out that some people will vote for what they want and hope that their vote will matter and then there are other people who will set up protests and movements in order to make their voices heard. If you truly believe in something then you will do more than vote, you'll take a stand. Movements rarely win because everyone happened to agree on something (Unless it's free money for all, and even then it might not work...), movements are successful because people set up rallys and won over the minds of others and then everyone voted. Political successes are never passive, they're active efforts by people who practice what they preach.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle
ReplyDeleteIf there were something that I really believe in i would break the law for it. You have to stand up for what you believe in even if it means that you will get in trouble. Even if the government would take away y rights you have to do what you believe is right. Some people say that they wouldn't but how could you not stand up for what you believe in.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think Thoreau wouldn't approve of our government today. He would think that the American government has to much power. He would believe that the government doesn't care about the people. That they only cared about what is best for them and not what is best for the people. He would believe that the government doesn't take into account that the people have all the power.
I agree with your thoughts on Thoreau's view of our government today. The American government's power has increased since Thoreau's time. He would try to persuade people to go against the government. The consequences are a lot different now than they were when he didn't pay taxes for 6 months.
DeleteResponse 1- Thoreau
ReplyDeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
Personally I would not break the law. Laws are set in place to keep society under control. If people were to go around breaking laws just because they don’t agree with something, things would be hectic. That being said, if there was a law that was unjust and should be changed i think we should partition peacefully. Example, vote against it. Thoreau’s whole essay is titled Civil Disobedience, and yes i agree it is our duty to fight against unjust laws, but people often turn to violence to get what they want. That usually does more harm then good. So I think that it would be better if we didn’t break the law and instead protested to get our way.
Response 2- Thoreau
ReplyDeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
“For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is forever.” This stood out to me because i felt like it gave a little hope to everyone who is working towards something. It means it doesn’t matter how slow you go, a good job can have everlasting effects.
It fits in with the essay well because Thoreau says that it is our duty to rebel against unjust laws. Only a few leaders are needed to change society into something else, something better. Change can take a long time, but if the leader does a good job then the change can have amazing effects.
I agree with your thoughts on this Thoreau quote. It is uplifting for those wanting to make change, but not confident in them self enough to do something big. Any small action can turn into a big movement, especially in our era of social media. Change does not have to take a long time, as President Roosevelt has shown. Although he is one man, in less than a decade he was able to change America into a new, functional country. Likewise with Thoreau, he did something small(write a paper) that impacted many and moved them to take action and make changes.
DeleteResponse 1- Emerson
ReplyDeleteWhat distinguishes self-reliance from selfishness? Do you see any points in te essay where Emerson seems to cross this line?
Before I even read Self- Reliance I defined the term so I could have a full understanding of what this essay would be about. Basically it is trusting your own powers and resources instead of others. Being self sufficient. To me this is a very positive quality to have.
Selfishness is being focused on your own personal gains without concern on how it affects others. While it is good to make profit for yourself, you should not be degrading others. To me the biggest difference is that self reliance is being able to do something for yourself without the help of others, while selfishness is when you don't care for others needs and your desires are more important.
In Self-Reliance, Emerson stresses the point to trust yourself. He wants for you to gain confidence. Although he is speaking directly to the reader he often bashes the majority for being selfish. In most cases the reader is a part of the majority which can make the reader feel worse about themselves. But if the reader understands his flaws being part of the majority them Emerson has motivated them to become more self reliant. So altogether I think Emerson did step over the line, but it can have both positive and negative effects on the reader.
Response 2- Emerson
ReplyDeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
“To be great is to be misunderstood.” This quote stood out to me because difference is other misunderstood. His point is that if a person isn't understood because they think differently, then maybe that person is a great thinker. Probably because they use their minds and think outside the masses. Often we don’t understand great thinkers at first, but through time we learn that the person is actually genius.
The whole essay is talking about trusting your instincts and thinking for yourself. By trusting yourself you form your own opinions and ideas that differ from what others think. Thinking outside the box sometimes leases to great ideas. These ideas may not be seen as great by others, and they honestly may not be great, the greatness of them is that they originated from within you.
Take any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
ReplyDeleteA question that I found myself wondering while reading this essay, was whether our actions, or even the actions Thoreau suggests, are that of rebels or revolutionaries. When we read in history, we often hear about these two types of people. The rebels are the ones who act against current authority for no particular reason, or fight those in power only to loose. On the other hand, the revolutionaries are those who create authentic change, whether it be in the culture,values, or politics. Thoreau seems to take a decent stance in the middle of these two, saying that it is not our divine purpose to single-handedly change the situations that we live in, but that when we do something, we should try to do it with our whole influence. I guess I was wondering myself how you find the balance between these two things, while thinking at the same time, why just be a rebel? Why do we often decide to be content with this, instead of working towards making a lasting difference, and revolutionizing whatever our passion is?
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDeleteA quote that stuck out to me the most was,"I do not wish to quarrel with any man or nation. I do not wish to split hairs, to make fine distinctions, or set myself up as better than my neighbors. I seek rather, I may say, even an excuse for conforming to the laws of the land. I am but too ready to conform to them." I picked this quote, because to me it is real honesty. Thoreau is writing this essay to convince the reader that he should be willing to stand against this essay, but he doesn't just make this idea seem totally glamorous, or sugar coat it. In this section Thoreau openly admits that there is a conflict raging inside of him, and that he understands the difficulty that comes with doing what is right.
Simply put, Thoreau uses this section to admit that he is human, and appeal to us on this level. He craves to make a difference, and improve the world that he lives in, but at the same time fears this. As part of our human nature, we despise conflict. We create methods to avoid it, ignore it, and banish it from our minds, because we simply do not want to deal with it. So, in short, Thoreau is urging us not just to fight society, the government, and even or peers and neighbors in the name of what is right, but to fight our very being.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, Thoreau would view the American government of today as worse than the American government of the 19th century. Thoreau quoted Thomas Jefferson at the beginning of his essay stating “ that government is best which governs least”. The government of today is very hands on in its citizens lives. From constantly watching and monitoring us to sending its citizens overseas to fight in wars not concerning us. Henry David Thoreau would not be pleased with the American government that has seemed to get only worse since his days.
I completely agree with what you said. Our government has slowly gotten worse throughout the years. They have become more controlling and hands on, like you said, which I don't see as a good thing. They spy on their own citizens and send people overseas to fight in wars that really have impact on us. The government has fallen apart and I do not think that Thoreau would like our government at all.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteYes, I would break a law in order to uphold a higher principle. In my case, a higher principle would pertain to my religious beliefs. Fighting in a war would be something I would have to refuse(if a draft expanded to me) due to the people of my religion remaining neutral in all worldly conflicts. In his essay Thoreau mentions “if it is of such nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then, I say, break the law”. Killing someone, in my opinion, is certainly doing them an injustice; therefore if a law states that I would have to kill someone or go into war, I would break that law.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletehoreau, deeming himself as a most passionate radical, muses over the notion "That government is best which governs least", by the notorious Thomas Jefferson. Despite his affinity for such freedom, he so quickly contradicts himself. Much like the founding fathers, Thoreau sees the current government as oppressive, and will not accept anything less than he demands. However, unlike the men of the revolution, he has an obvious disdain for the works of democracy. He asks the rhetorical question "Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?", yet the concept of moral rule is not anywhere near democracy, but is, to some extent, a theocracy. Thoreau has established in his writing that the masses are incompetent of creating just decisions; given the circumstances I would see reason in that notion, however nevertheless it contradicts the fundamental principles of democracy, and such tyranny is not what Franklin and Jefferson wanted of our new found nation.
ReplyDeleteThough I fundamentally disagree with basing government solely on the morality of a single man, I see no issue in expressing one's grief with civil disobedience. Laws are not all created justly, for the majority isn't always just in its consensuses. With the right to create the law, one must also have the right to disobey it to express one's convictions; it is assumed, however, that such person would face the consequences of the crime, and would remain pacific. If one was to commit violent actions to spite the law, he or she is no better than his or her oppressors. With all in consideration, if I feel the ethical entitlement, I would, without haste, defy the laws of our jurisdiction and face incarceration.
*Thoreau; for some reason the T chose to disappear.
DeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete“I perceive that, when an acorn and a chestnut fall side by side, the one does not remain inert to make way for the other, but both obey their own laws, and spring and grow and flourish as best they can, till one, perchance, overshadows and destroys the other. If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man.”
As I analyzed this passage I began to contemplate the similarities between nature and humans. The quote, “If a plant cannot live according to its nature, it dies; and so a man” made me wonder, what are their natures? Humans and plants are both resilient, striving in a world of obstacles. Plants try to support themselves when nature works counteractively, as do humans. Additionally, both of us try to stay true to this nature of ours, but if we can not live by it, we wither away. Plants do, literally, by dying off, while humans fall into nothingness – becoming shadows of those whose nature they conform to. The advantage we have over plants is that we can change our situation to promote our own nature, while plants are forced to be stagnant. As humans, we must never let go of our nature. We must never let other people control our lives nor our thoughts, the elements that keep our identity and independence. If we do not accomplish this, we will become worthless in our habitats like plants that are overshadowed.
As the quote is near the middle of the essay, it is evident that Thoreau chose not to introduce a new idea, but to give a different view on an already present one. This is accomplished through his comparison, adding a new perspective that causes more stimulation of thought. Thoreau places this quote to show why you must not let laws and the government control you. It shows how fighting against these institutions to preserve your morals and ideals is something that will keep you from being overshadowed and useless. However, when you take it out of context of the essay, it brings a whole new and larger meaning as you begin to see your whole life as a fight to sustain your nature. The quote expands on the concept of living for your own nature by introducing the idea in the view of plants. This not only expands your mind to the similarities between plants and humans, but it gives you another viewpoint of the struggle to preserve your essence.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteThis question is opaque due to the range in principles and laws that could be broken. Because of the variety of situations present, I have no way to know if I would break a law in order to uphold a higher principle. Still, there are two reasons that would possibly galvanize me to act. One is to be a hero, fighting for a principle that not only I but also the majority of the public would uphold. Through this action, a movement would spark, as it did with Rosa Parks and the Montgomery Bus Boycott. However, honestly, I do not strive to be a hero that the public follows, so I have no motivation to break a law for that reason. The only other reason to break a law to uphold a higher principle would be if the situation was drastic or truly unjust, affecting my life directly in a way that I would not be able to live anymore with it on my mind. This situation, which would be one worth fighting for, is something that I do not think would present itself during my lifetime.
If this second condition were to display itself, I hope that I would have the morality to uphold the principle in the face of any challenge. I do not know if I could stand up against the law, something that can punish you and ruin your life in ways untold. On the other hand, if the situation or the law that I would break has already ruined my life to a point where it is “impossible” for me to live, I do not think a government or it’s laws could prevent me from upholding the principle I follow. This condition is extreme, and for that to happen, there would have to be many other things wrong with the world. If this radical condition is not present, I would uphold principles through moderate means that do not risk complete failure, and it is in this way that I disagree with Thoreau. It is apparent that his efforts to stop the government did not successfully bring the transformation that he promoted. He, in result, only showed his disagreement without executing change. This change would occur more effectively through a moderate approach that advances things while being in an accepted light. It is through these methods that I can confidently say I would uphold a higher principle.
I agree with the two conditions you have presented. I especially like the first one, breaking a law to be a hero of sorts (literally breaking the law for a higher purpose). The Rosa Parks example is perfect - if she had not done that, who knows where civil rights would be today? This condition is well developed and makes sense.
DeleteI also agree with your second point. Thoreau, in showing disagreement, did nothing to change what he did not agree with. If he truly thought his view was better, he should have worked to change the law from within the government properly, rather than just "throw a fit". The law had not ruined Thoreau's life to the point where it was impossible for him to live, so his reaction almost appears as childish.
Overall, I think you brought up and described some very good points that I agree with.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI believe it would be very difficult to break a law to uphold a higher principle because of the consequences that could follow by doing so. I would like to believe I would break a law to uphold a higher principle. It would take great courage and a lot of mental toughness to stand up for what is right.
There are also some laws I wouldn't break to uphold a higher principle. Any law that I would break that could lead to someone's death I wouldn't risk breaking. Laws are meant to keep people in line as well as keep people safe.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would view the American government of today in disappointment. He believed a government that was govern the least was the best type of government. He also was against much military action especially with affairs that didn't involve the U.S.
The U.S government today is more involved than it was in the 19th century. We have Obama care to help people with no insurance. In addition, we have been sending troops in and pulling them out in multiple occasions of affairs that do not necessarily involves us.
I completely agree. These days the government is to involved in the everyday lives of people. Thoreau's beliefs would counter all that the government is doing even if they have good intentions. Their military involvement is beyond our power but he would have stood up against our modern government, although it is better than other governments around the world.
DeleteMilitary Intervention might not always concern us physically but can impact us economically, and watching innocents being murdered isn't exactly a pretty picture. Other countries do this as well or at least consider it as in England when they contemplated intervening on the Civil
DeleteWar on the South's behalf in order to protect their cotton investments. Which, in the end can be said to England Performed civil disobedience (bit of a stretch) to themselves as they considered their own moral hierarchy as they decided to save the slaves instead of their own economic well-being.
I do agree that Thoreau would be disappointed in the amount of government intervention, but he would be happy with many things too. We have so many more rights and personal freedoms than ever before. In some foreign governments, you could get arrested for practicing a different religion or speaking your mind. We have the first amendment that protects some of our most important rights. Without these rights, our country would be completely altered.
DeleteWould you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI think this is pretty much a trick question. Because you might be breaking the law to uphold a higher standard but by breaking the law you are degrading yourself to a lower standard. I am guessing that you can uphold a higher standard in a different way then breaking the law. But I guess if i was tying to uphold a higher standard and I really wanted to impress some people I would break the law to try to get to the place I wanted even though I knew it was wrong and not the best thing to do. You have to do what you have to do right?
Yes, however becoming a hero I would say be an improvement in how others perceive you. It truly matters on which law you break.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?\
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thoreau would be a little disappointed in our government today. I think this because he held this government to such a high standard i think he would be embarrassed and sadden to see the way the government is hiding, and treating certain things within its self. I also think he would be disappointed in the way some of the things have been handled up to this point.i also think he would be very disappointed in Obama Care, because it is basically giving people free stuff that they don't deserve, and don't have to work for, which was Thoreau's whole topic.
I agree with your comment especially about Obama care. Obama care is pretty much disrespecting the people he is giving it too, which is exactly what Thoreau didn't want to do. Also with the government hiding behind their actions, they are degrading themselves which is lowering their importance. Thoreau believed that people in a government position should respect themselves and everybody else, and they are doing the opposite of that.
DeleteHow would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe he would be ashamed of our government today. There is so much corruption in todays government and I think he would be embarrassed by it. He was also opposed to to war and military intervention. Our military has become very involved in foreign affairs in recent years. I think he would be against how much military forces are being used. Also, most funding for anything done is raised by taxes. Thoreau made it clear in his writing how much he disapproved of taxing, so much so he went to jail for a night.
I think he would be proud of how we managed to stay a democracy and are included in decision making by voting. As a whole i think Thoreau would be disappointed in today's government.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI don't think i would just because I fear the repercussions. I can see why the people who do break laws for higher principle do it. There are people who break the law to try to make a difference. They believe they are better our government and can't be heard any other way. Thoreau believed he was doing this by not paying taxes. People protesting where they shouldn't be are an example of that today. I'd like to think that I'd break the law to hold up a higher principle, but i know I probably wouldn't.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thoreau would discredit our government even more than he did his government. Nowadays our votes in the presidential elections really don't matter that much, it is the electoral college that matters. This truly shows that all men are not treated as equals. Also with the taxes, his point that living in closer quarters is more free than living with vast amounts of wealth is not correct. There is much more that the government can tax one on today than there was back then so having more money will suit one much better. The respect of one another man has decreased as time has continued which is what Thoreau wanted in the first place, a government that truly respects all men as if he were a neighbor. At the end of his essay, Thoreau made the point that democracy may not be the most evolved government. I think that if he saw our government today we would evolve the government himself and start up a revolution just as he praised.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteAbsolutely not. The law is there to bring order and peace to society and to show that people have restrictions no matter who they are. Breaking the law shows that the criminal thinks they are above the law, and nobody is above the law. There are powerful ways to stand up and defend your principles, but breaking the law is not a good example. Also, because I believe that the laws and punishments are much more reasonable nowadays than they were when Thoreau wrote this essay, there would be now law that involved breaking a principle. Thoreau wrote this essay with the point that all men should be respected and nobody is better than anybody else. Breaking the law defies just that point. Showing that you believe you are above the law proves that you think that you are better than just about everybody out there.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principal?
ReplyDeleteIn my personal opinion, I believe that the well known saying "actions speak louder than words" is an appropriate addition to this question. It was made clear that Thoreau full heartedly embraced this motto as his own to live by when it came to rejecting the governments propositions. In this case, I too would have to say that I would in fact break the law in order to uphold a higher principal. Of course with every unpredictable efforts that involve some sort of protest, a line is drawn that insures the safety of the people, which I would be sure of not to cross.
In conclusion, I argue that if you believe entirely in something, yet you are not doing anything productive towards the cause, you are just waiting around for a change that will never come. YOU need to be the one to make a statement. And that is what I believe Thoreau was trying to convey throughout his entire essay. To submerge yourself completely into what you believe in- even if it requires you to break a law here and there, is to make a statement, and that is all one could ask for.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be; what once is well done is done forever. But we love better to talk about it, that we say is our mission."
This quote was one of the ones that really caught my eye as I read through the essay. The meaning behind the quote itself does not only hold a powerful message, but can also be closely related to how we live in this day and age. The first part of the quote, "For it matters not how small the beginning may seem to be; what once is well done is done forever" indicates that no matter how small an effort may seem, as long as it is completed to the extent of its abilities, it is successful. The second part of the quote, "But we love better to talk about it, that we say is our mission.' This is the part that I found most evident in our society today. On a day to day basis we are hearing and talking of things in our country that need to be done, yet that is all it seems to be. A conversation, no action, just an exchange of words. What I then found most interesting when reading the quote as a whole, is the irony behind it. The first half of the quote shows the innocence and simplicity behind making an effort, no matter how small it may seem, yet the second half of the quote shows that even the most minimal of efforts is to much for some to undergo when they are riddled with laziness or fear of taking charge.
I completely agree with your understanding of the quote. I actually picked the same quote and we had very similar, yet somehow different ideas. I liked that you pointed out that no matter how small a deed is, when someone does it to their best ability, then it is a grand deed. I interpreted it as a ripple effect. I also loved the interpretation of the second half of the quote. It was such a short sentence, yet had so much meaning behind it.
DeleteTake any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete“For it matter not how small the beginning may seem to be: what is once well done is done forever.”
Any significant change needs to begin, and it can even begin through one person’s actions. As people begin to realize the wisdom and correctness of that singular person’s position, the change can begin to expand and grow. This can be in reference to a change in government, religion or even the field of science. But, taking into account the time period that the essay was written in, Thoreau is talking about the abolition of slavery. No one had enough courage, whether it be a Congressman or a farmer who simply needed slaves to help on his land, to break the status quo and stand up to support abolition. All it would have taken was one slave owner to say it was wrong and free his slaves. Others would begin to realize that he was morally right and followed as he did. Soon enough, the entire system and support of slavery would begin to crumble, or so Thoreau thought.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau strongly believed that the government should govern, yet trust those that it governs and reach a higher moral realm. Today, the NSA spies on those under the American government. They will search through our internet browsing history, read our emails and text messages and even eavesdrop on personal phone calls. Thoreau would find it disgusting that our government completes a hefty amount of invading privacies on a daily basis. And for us, we cannot simply walk two miles to a berry hill and will not be harassed by the State anymore.
If Thoreau were to watch or listen to the advertisements promoting politicians around election time, he would be surprised to find that since 1894, when this essay was originally published, politicians have not changed. They think only of themselves and how they can constantly rack up the votes and stay ahead of their competitors. They will falsely promise to complete tasks that they cannot and will promote things even if they do not believe it is morally right, strictly because it is what the voters want to hear. Thoreau will certainly not find someone that is as respectable as Daniel Webster in Congress today. Overall, I believe that Thoreau would be appalled by our government, as he was when he wrote this essay.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI believe that given the right circumstances I would break a law to uphold a higher principle, just like Batman or Robin Hood! I think a good example of this that happens all around the world are martyrs that are being killed and persecuted for their faith. They have made a decision that their religion takes number one priority in their life, even over the law. I would like to say that if i were in a position where I had to choose between my faith and my safety I would choose my faith and stand up to face the consequences. Breaking a law for this reason would speak so much about that person. It would convey their passion and commitment so clearly. If I have this same passion and commitment then i would detest the law and stand up for what I believe in.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDeleteA memorable quote for me was, " A man has not everything to do, but something." This does not mean that every time there is an issue you are there to fix ti and take care of every detail. It does mean that if you see an injustice in the world it is your responsibility to do something about it. In my mind there are 3 things that you can do; speak up, be bold, and live it out. This means that you can make it known that this is wrong, then stand your ground, and make sure you aren't being hypocritical. Also, you may not be able to fix the whole issue right then and there but the little thing that did could start a whole chain of acts that go toward changing the injustice. This fits into the essay because the author says that if you support something you will be able to tell because you will be able to see them doing something about it.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I chose to answer this question because of the "fun" response I came up with to it.
Breaking a law for a higher purpose, going against what is rule for something greater, functioning above the law. All these characteristics are those of a vigilante, a hero, someone like (obviously I know this is not a real life comparison, but it still makes my point) Batman. The superhero Batman, the caped shadow of the night and secret other self of Bruce Wayne, was created for the purpose of going above the law. Bruce Wayne, like Thoreau, recognized corruption and flaws in the laws his government provided. Because the laws were broken for a higher purpose, good came out of the situation.
The point I wish to make is that sometimes, breaking a law has to be done in order for something bad NOT to happen. Imagine if someone is bleeding heavily and there is no way to contact an ambulance. If you followed all the traffic laws to get to the hospital, the person might not survive. However, if you do everything you can to get to the hospital as quickly as possible, the person can receive the care they need and survive.
This type of emergency situation will not present itself everyday, perhaps even never. But when they do, the higher purpose honored by breaking the law is well worth it.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI might break a law to uphold a higher principle, but it depends on many things like the law and the principle and the consequences of breaking that law. If it is something that i strongly believe in then i would probably do it as long as it isn't extreme and the results are worth it, good and bad combined. If it gets me into lots of trouble then probably not, it still depends on the entire situation.
Thoreau would disagree with me for he believes that principle is more important than law for men make law and principle in in your heart, and he wants no government and no law.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would have a poor view and opinion of our government today. One of his most developed and keynote thoughts was the quote by Thomas Jefferson, "That government is best which governs least." This being said, I am sure that Thoreau would not think today's government "governs least". We live in a society with a very influential government. There are, however, good and bad sides to this influence. Good aspects include global economy, protection, and an established judicial system. Bad aspects include the social drive of politics, political parties, and (as Thoreau pointed out) a lack of a genius leader. Given Thoreau's writing though, he may even view the current good aspects as bad, saying the economy is too controlling, the protection is not needed, and the judicial system is subjective and unfair.
Because the government does not so drastically govern the least amount possible, I do not think Thoreau would be pleased with the current government.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau begins his work by quoting the third President of The United States of America Thomas Jefferson, " That government is best which governs least. Now, I'm no expert in political affairs (my brother is though), but just by watching commercials or catching a bit of news the government's size can be described as a "over-sized load". Especially in today with the internet and social media buzz, the government can seep into our lives (making your Instagram private doesn't stop the NSA from viewing you!). Based off the text, I'd say Thoreau's work was during the Civil War Era. While they were newspapers and trains in the 1860's, information would still move at sloth speed compared to 2014. So, I believe Henry David Thoreau would view our government with dismay.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would think poorly of the government today because he believed in very little involvement of the government in society. Today, the government is very involved in society which would most likely anger Thoreau. He would have to be very involved in politics in order to make the changes necessary to fulfill his idea of the government.
If Thoreau wanted to change the government he would have a much harder time because i believe the government has become increasingly more stable since the existence of Thoreau. Also now political parties are more established and maybe would have an effect of Thoreau's beliefs. I think though, he would have an impact on the government today.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think that Thoreau would be displeased with our government today. The people seem like they have all of the power, but in reality, we don't. For example, in the Bush/Al Gore election, the electoral college picked the president, not the people. Also, the government is trying to take away some of the rights listed in the Bill of Rights, such as the right to bear arms. I am neither for or against this, but I have a feeling that Thoreau would not be very happy seeing the government take away a right that has existed for many years. Thoreau would not be happy with the amount of taxes we have in today's society. Also, the amount of spying that the government performs on its own citizens would be enough for Thoreau to break multiple laws.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteI would not break a law in order to try and uphold a higher principle. I think that I would be too afraid of the consequences. But also, if the government sees that its people are breaking the law, they're not going to say, "Okay everybody let's give them what they want". Instead, they will throw everybody in jail. It's like when you're a little kid and you disobey your parents, they won't say "Oh good job for not listening and following the rules" but instead "Go sit in time out". Breaking the law will not help the people at all, it will just make the government furious and more likely to become more harsh with punishments.
Would you break the law to uphold a higher principal?
ReplyDeleteI would probably not break the law in most situations. I believe that I wouldn't have to break the law to uphold my values. Breaking the law should be a last resort if you believe in an issue that strongly. We all have things that upset us in the world, but most of us will not do anything to solve it because we are either afraid of the consequences or it doesn’t bother us enough to fix. For me to break the law, I would have to know and understand the consequences and be OK with them. I would have to believe so strongly in the issue that I wouldn't care about what would happen to me.
Saying this reminds me of how the colonists might have felt towards Britain. Most of the colonists were farmers and shop owners who have never broke a law in their life. They were just ordinary people who felt like they were being treated unjustly. They felt so strongly on the issue that they broke laws and eventually went to war. They knew the consequence was death, but they still kept fighting for all the freedoms we have today. It would have to be a very important cause for me to break the law.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe that Thoreau would both like and despise certain parts of our government. I think that Thoreau would dislike all the laws that limit some of our freedoms. There are so many laws that restrict your choices such as how you park, what you buy, marriage, and much more. However, some of these laws are very helpful in our society. Most of the laws which we think are unnecessary are actually very important. Without all of these laws, our society would not run as smoothly as it does now.
Thoreau would love all the rights and personal freedoms we have in our country. Many countries around the world don’t have the personal freedoms as we do. The 5 main rights that Thoreau would want in every government are all listed in the first amendment.
Take any of your questions from your annotation and expand on them here.
ReplyDeleteWhat was Thoreau's attitude concerning the role of the government?
Thoreau believed that people should not allow the government to take precedence over their own sense of right and wrong. His ideas were influenced by his disgust with slavery. As a Transcendentalist, Thoreau believed that people should follow their own consciences rather than doing what society expects of them. In Thoreau's case, the government believed that fighting Mexico in the Mexican-American War was the thing to do. Thoreau believed fighting Mexico was wrong and therefore refused to pay his taxes.
So, Thoreau believes that government is bad because it tends to prevent people from following their consciences as they should. This led him to say "That government is best which governs not at all" .
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteThere are so many different laws, some that I don't and others that I don't care to know. In that case, I would say I would either break some laws or definitely not "these" laws. If a life was on the line and a law would have to be broken in order for this individual to see another day, then I would certainly break it. The reparations of not following this rule would however be likely none and you would be seen as an hero if you succeeded. My high principle in this case would be value for human livelihood. The only reason you should break the law is if you're in an emergency and the law has to be broken is how I feel.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would be deeply disappointed in our modern government. In his opinion it would not satisfy the phrase "That government is best which governs least" for our government is extremely controlling and hides much knowledge from us. When the government started the manhattan project, it was kept a secret from us. Their excuse is that it was for public safety, but Thoreau would counter that saying that the secret was out to the U.S.S.R before we knew about it due to spies. He would recomend spying on our own government just as their enemies do to them and as they do to us,(referring to the NSA) This government may be better than others around the world but it is still in control of everything we do in our everyday lives.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would think poorly of the government today because he believed in very little involvement of the government in society. Today, the government is very involved in society which would most likely anger Thoreau. He would have to be very involved in politics in order to make the changes necessary to fulfill his idea of the government.
If Thoreau wanted to change the government he would have a much harder time because i believe the government has become increasingly more stable since the existence of Thoreau. Also now political parties are more established and maybe would have an effect of Thoreau's beliefs. I think though, he would have an impact on the government today.
Would you break a law in order to uphold a higher principle?
ReplyDeleteIn most cases I think that my answer would be no to this question. I order for me to break the law, I think that there would have to be an unjust and extremely corrupt law that would make me want to commit civil disobedience against and break the law. However, in many of the other cases that would not take me to that extreme, I would definitely protest, form assemblies, or take part in other similar means to put a stop to an unjust form of government or law. If one were to break a law, then one would have to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions, and this is why breaking the law is an action that I would regularly hesitate to do. Instead I would use my rights to assert myself and put a stop to injustice while still obeying the law.
Take any memorable quote from the essay and expand upon it. What do you think he means? How does it fit within the context of the overall essay?
ReplyDelete"That government is best which governs least" is a definite memorable quote because it is the basis of the essay. It explains exactly why Thoreau wrote the essay. Thoreau means that the most successful government is the one that is not involved in society. His approach is very one sided and I believe has some flaws but also he has good points. Thoreau believed that the government was too involved in society. The government in the time period Thoreau lived in might have been different and more involved but in some ways the government is still involved leading to some success if the essay connected to todays government. The Republican party today also searches for a less involved government.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteThoreau would view our government as too involved. He was the kind of person that was against the involvement of the government in any affair. I think that he would also be angered by people not having enough say. Although the government today is run by the people, we still have little say. This would make him upset because he believed that people should have more say than we do, even now. Thoreau would definitely not be happy about taxes in our government. Considering he went to jail for not paying his taxes, he would be very angry and wouldn't want to conform to the government and pay his taxes. Due to all the his distaste toward the government, seeing it today, he would most likely attempt to rebel against the government again.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI feel that Thoreau would view our government as corrupt or unjust in many senses. In the essay Thoreau says "for it is, after all, with men and not with parchment that I quarrel" I view this as him saying there is nothing wrong with the constitution but how the government is interpreting it and enforcing it is a different situation. With the things that have been going on currently in our government with Ferguson as well as many other cases of a corrupt government would certainly anger Thoreau.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI think that Thoreau would be both pleased with some aspects of our government today and also aggravated by others. Slavery was a large influence on Thoreau during his time. He was disgusted by the fact that a man could own another man, and this is one aspect that would greatly please Thoreau. Not only do we have slavery anymore, but all races have equal rights too. I think that Thoreau would also greatly appreciate the freedom we citizens have. The rights we possess as American citizens are often taken for granted, many countries around the world not even come close to the amount of freedom we have, this freedom would definitely not be taken grated for be Thoreau.
On the contrary, Thoreau would have also been aggravated by some aspects of our government. As US citizens we have many rights as stated before, but their are also many rules and regulations that we live under. Many of these regulations may even restrict your rights. For example, gun control, you as a US citizen have a rights to bear arms, but there are restrictions set in place that can limit the use of or ban guns in certain places etc. Although that these restrictions protect us in many situations, I think that Thoreau would be annoyed by the nature of these limitations not necessarily the limitations themselves.
How would Thoreau view our government today?
ReplyDeleteI believe Thoreau would have liked and disliked certain parts of our government that we have today. I believe that he would have approved of the fact that a lot of laws today benefit the individual. However there are still many laws that restrict our day to day lives. I believe Thoreau would commend all the progress that we have made since he first wrote Civil Disobedience. However we are still far from his ideal vision of a perfect form of government.