Civil Disoedience
Thoreau writes in Civil Disobedience, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward...The only obligation which I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right..." (250).
Do you agree with Thoreau? Do we have an obligation to disobey the law if we don't agree with it, and are the consequences worth the fight?
Do you agree with Thoreau? Do we have an obligation to disobey the law if we don't agree with it, and are the consequences worth the fight?
posted by Kristin L | 8:21 AM
14 Comments:
In Thoreau's statement I do agree with the part that says "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward". We should be true to ourselves and our beliefs first. We shouldn't do what everyone says just because they say it. We need to embrace our own opinions even if they go against or are misunderstood by the society. Now, I don't know if we have an obligation to disobey the law if we don't agree with it but it certainly doesn't do any good keeping your opinions in your head instead of acting on them. Great leaders like Martin Luther King, Jr. wouldn't have gotten anywhere if they kept their beliefs to themselves. So I guess if you feel strong enough to fight and tolerate the consequences you should. If one doesn't feel like the consequences are worth it then maybe they don't feel so strongly about what they're fighting for in the first place. You aren't forced to rise up but the people who do feel strongly about something will. If one has passion in their beliefs I think it will come some what naturally to have the urge to fight. It is still hard to do it and can be a huge sacrifice but their will to win the fight is so strong that they are able to make the sacrifice.
Going to what Jordyn said I believe that the government is doing the best they can and that a government where people are responsible for their own actions would ultimately fale. The government is capable of change and this is where people with good reasons who stand up change things. The government, sometimes slowly, comes around and listens to the people who stand up because they can see truth and goodness in their beliefs. They see that what they are saying may be a positive change in socitey. the government helps establish changes that are helpfull and puts down that could only be hurtfull where as a government controlled by our actions could end up hurting many people.
Wow right now I would like to congradulate Jordyn on posting pretty much the longest post ever!
I agree with Thoreau to a certain point, I believe that the fact that we are men and women first, foremost, originally, and eventually because this can’t change. The obligation to a law can only govern based on a person’s setting, whether or not a person lives in a certain city or is controlled by a certain government. The fact that this isn’t permanent proves that this isn’t the utmost force of control.
On the other hand, to succeed in many ways, laws must be obeyed and most laws are made with good intentions. There are some laws that don’t make sense to be obeyed by certain people, and if they can stand the consequences, they should fight, but only if this is absolutely necessary. Basically, like Jordyn said, if people went around breaking laws, we would live in an out of control society and chaos would ensue.
So I think we should consider part of our obligation to being men and women an obligation to obeying laws.
I disagree that we have an obligation to disobey the law if it doesn't agree with our morals. Yes, stand up for your morals and beliefs. Yes, be true to who you are, but that does not mean that you must break rules because you think that they are wrong. We have the privilege of being able to vote for what we believe in. You may not always end up with what you wanted, but there will be chances to change it. If everyone, like Jordyn said, did what they wanted, when they wanted, we would no longer have any sort of structured society.
I agree with most of what Jordyn has so nicely posted. Our government works for the best of man, and we do have choices. If we all acted on gut reactions, we would no longer function as human beings, and we would become more primitive in some odd way. I believe that this would cause more harm than good because nobody would ever agree with eachother. Fighting would break out and it would be okay with some people and not with others. It would cause an entire chain reaction of people disliking this action, trying to change it, then more people trying to change that action and so on. Government is needed to make life better for man, and to help people live together in the best way possible. Many governments are not this way, but we are lucky enough to have the chance to live in this country by some unseen lottery. We should make the most of it and try to make it the best it can be for future generations.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
I completely agree with Thoreau, “We should be men first, and subjects afterward.” It is one’s duty, especially as an American to stand up for your moral beliefs despite the law; this is how America was formed. The consequences are definitely worth the fight. However, I believe in civil disobedience; protesting one law without breaking others, and violence is not always the way to go.
Like other people said,not all laws/rules are bad; some protect people, and others are just common sense.
I do not think that one should be a rebel “just because” this seems kinda silly and ultimately pointless.
I do agree with Thoreau when he says that we should be men first and not subjects. We need to be ourselves first and foremost, then who others possibly want us to be, or want to use us for.
However, I disagree that we have an obligation to disobey the law. If we want to disobey, then I think it is O.K. as long as the consequences are known and accepted by the ‘rebel.’ It is also a really a personal decision. When Thoreau refused to pay his taxes, it was to make a point mainly for himself, so he could feel good about himself. It wasn't for other people to respond to or necessarily follow. So, yes, I think that it is absolutely appropriate to stand up for and support what you want or believe in, yet I disagree that we are morally or even generally obligated to do so.
To continue, I think that the consequences are worth the fight, even if the consequences are death. If the mental support of one person is strong enough, they could and should be able to follow through with everything. This includes the initial action and then the consequences. Overall, this is a cause and effect situation. One must understand this before he dives into support. Thoreau, I believe, knew this, and I think that his overall experience made him a stronger and more fulfilled person.
Like Jessica, I agree with the part that states, “We should be men first, and subjects afterward.” I think each person has the right to be themselves and that to group people together based on appearance, actions, ideas, etc. is unfair. But just because we don’t agree with some of the laws doesn’t mean that it is right or justified to break them. Depending on the law, there are different levels of punishment which is reasonable, but sometimes it is necessary to look at a situation in the big picture and see that people act to prove a point that the rest of society is afraid to make. The laws are set in this country by the people and we vote on them, but it isn’t right for people to act on how they think the law should be written because they had a say in the law but their views were not those of the majority. If people are treated first as a group they are going to rebel because they want the attention and they want their opinions to matter. But when people are addressed personally they are more likely to cooperate and to value the laws because they have helped create them. No one is forced to follow the laws but they have been set by the rest of the voting community and are there for a reason, for the most part. If people feel that they are making a difference and that they have a say in the community they are more likely to accept and follow the laws. We do not have an obligation to break the law, we have the choice and if we feel that we are doing this to make a point that society is unwilling to address, like Rosa Parks did by sitting in the front of the bus, we can break the law but there will always be a punishment for that.
DANG! Good work Jordyn S. That’s longer than the other Jordan!
I think Thoreau is right to a certain point. Like Jordyn said if we all acted on impulse then our society would crumble and like Erin G said we would become more primitive. I think that it some cases if we think something is wrong and we disobey thats ok depending on the consequence. Some of the consequences are worth fighting depending on who you are. If you think it's ok to kill people then you can fight the consequence of jail time but most people wouldn’t take that risk. I think it's ok to disobey when you are willing to face the consequences.
I think that each circumstance is different. If there is something that you disagree with that is really minor and doesn't really even matter in the long run, then you don't need to defy authority. That is pretty much just going against the flow because you feel like it, and not for any real reason. However, if you strongly disagree with somehting that the government is doing, you should take a stand for what you believe in. I think that one there is one fairly simple way to know if you should be defying government; if you are willing to accept the worst consequence, then what you are fighting for is real to you. If you find that you don't really want to deal with the consequence, then you might consider that what you are trying to do isn't really necissary.
Ok, so I was just about ready to sit down and type my response when I decided to read the "Longest Post Ever" and now I have nothing to write and will have to think of something new to say!! This is the one downside of blogging. I completely agree with Jordyn how people must have some sort of government to keep them in line, otherwise everyone would be their own person, running around making decisions that they thought were “best at the time”. If this happened there would not be Countries, there would be Crazy Individuals. There would be Individual Wars, where it would be like having 6.5 billion politicians raging against each other's Individual Decisions!
Anyway, I, like almost everybody else, agree with Thoreau to a certain extent. I agree with the statement that people should be men first and subjects afterward but I think that these two things are so closely related that things can become complicated. The way that Thoreau states his ideas give off the idea that if someone is a "subject" that means he is a government robot; they are only concerned with the rules and regulations of the government without a second glance. This is hardly the case in any country. There is always a group in every country that has ideas to change how the government runs things and in America people can have their own opinions and reveal them in the most blinding way. With these rights people are men, but also as importantly subjects because without some sort of government people do not have a clear direction to go.
I believe that men and women have the option to disobey the law if they do not agree with it. This links to Chris McCandless who had the option to disobey society’s rules for acceptable "rights of passage". He made the choice to disobey and faced the consequences which were worth the fight because it is what he believed in strongly enough to affect our world. Therefore, I think I can safely say that if someone believes strongly enough for their cause they should fight for it, no matter what the consequences will be. This someone's determination to fight for what they think is right could change the world dramatically in a positive way.
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
This question is defiantly tough. I think that Thoreau makes a very controversial point, urging men to break the law if they feel oppressed. To me, this all comes down to what is more important. For example, if we don’t agree with the rule at school to take our hats off in class, is it worth risking a referral because we think we have the right to wear a hat. In some instances, the consequences are minute, so disobedience wouldn’t be such a big deal. Other situations, like I said before, come down to fighting for what we believe. In my case, there is no way I would break a law like jay-walking, speeding, or stealing because I didn’t think the regulations fair and risk going to jail. But, my faith is way more important than any law so if someone told me that I wasn’t allowed to pray in public or own a bible, then heck yes, I would defiantly be willing to go to jail to support the cause. Others may not care, because faith doesn’t concern their life. Thoreau makes civil disobedience so easily agreeable, but also very controversial.
As for the first part of his statement, “I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward…” I completely agree. Our beliefs and values override society’s demands in all aspects in my mind, but his second statement is a bit strong. Thoreau obviously feels passionately about the subject but in the modern world, it would not be acceptable to step out at anytime and fight for what you believe. Like Jessica K said, it is ultimately about what you feel strongly enough for to fight against the rules. Just like I said above, the whole matter comes down to what is more important to each individual person, for everyone it is different, but that is what makes the world interesting.
All this long post stuff must be a Jordan kind of thing! Good job Jordyn!
I also wanted to say that I like Jordyn's long blogs cuz really they're full of awsome ideas and I'm with ya...It's hard to say all kinds of cool ideas in class!
Post a Comment
<< Home