Human law and government are subordinate and antagonists to each other. Thoreau proposes that in an instance when each odd is against one another, an individual must choose their own moral path instead of the government path if necessary. Thoreau explains that people are not put in this world to make it a better place to live in, rather than to simply live it. He then describes that it is not man’s duty to devote himself to the moral wrong. It is man’s duty to avoid the moral wrong. For instance, if the government tells you to either kill your family members or be sent to jail, it is your duty to obey your conscience. Furthermore, Thoreau explains that the majority is not always correct either and thus, do not accurately determine justice. Although government has a place in human existence, man must eventually follow his own moral decisions and disregard human…
Rebellion is a big difference between the two writings. Thoreau wants a world without government and wants to achieve that with peaceful rebellion. “It will not be worth the while to accumulate property; that would be sure to go again. You must hire or squat somewhere, and raise but…
4. Thoreau states that, “no government would be best”. However, as a citizen what does he call for at once? Why?…
During the 17th century, France and England moved in two very different political directions. By the close of the century, after decades of civil and religious strife, ENGLAND had developed into a CONSTITUTIONAL MONARCH with a policy of RELIGIOUS TOLERATION. By contrast, FRANCE developed an ABSOLUTIST, CENTRALIZED FORM OF GOVERNMENT dominated by a monarchy that shared little power with any other national institutions and prohibited all religions but ROMAN CATHOLICISM.…
Thoreau starts his essay by condemning his fellow countrymen’s actions, or rather, inaction. They and Thoreau share similar moral beliefs, but they refuse to take any action towards them.…
My thoughts: Here Mr. Thoreau states what he feels represent government in his day. He…
In his opening paragraph, he declares the bold and audacious statements: ‘[...] government is best which governs least [...]’ (lines 1-2) followed by, ‘[...] government is best which governs not at all [...]’ (line 4). Immediately the audience is—very clearly—exposed to his argument, which has an immense amount of force behind it. This is vital for Thoreau’s argument, as throughout his essay the audience hears a very strong and passionate voice, urging them to feel the same way about the topic, and that they too have been wronged by the government. Alongside Thoreau’s very forceful and powerful tone, a candid and critical tone is present. ‘This American government—what is it but a tradition, though a recent one, endeavoring to transmit itself unimpaired to posterity, but each instant losing some of its integrity?’ (lines 18-20). This very prominent line denounces the American government’s rectitude, implying that its partiality has reached to the point where it is just a pattern, and continued to increasingly execute unequitable behaviour. Though his attitude sounds negative and pessimistic, Thoreau does make a petition for action from society with an encouraging tone. ‘[...] I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it...’ (lines 45-48). Here, Thoreau uses ethos, as he knows that every man (and woman) wants to be respected, which then builds motivation for the people to take action against the current unjust government instead of heeding to its indoctrinated…
Thoreau begins this passage by saying that what someone says is true today may not turn out to be true tomorrow; while this is sometimes true, it doesn’t mean that one shouldn’t listen because what was said is believed to be true for a reason. The people that give the advice say what they say because they have been through what they’re talking about and that’s the only way to have knowledge about something, to live…
He follows this up by explaining that “If it is of such nature that it requires you to be the agent of injustice to another, then I say, break the law.” This also clarifies that when the nature of the law is unjust, then following good conscience resulting in the breaking of the law is actually the duty of the people. According to Thoreau, for a law “to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed.” Strangely enough, Thoreau believes that a citizen’s duty is not to force others to eradicate the wrong by breaking the law, but only eradicate the wrong in one’s own life. Thoreau shows how remove injustice from one’s life in an influential line that reads as…
One thing we can be sure about is that whenever Thoreau speaks of the positive points of living in nature, he is in some way criticizing nature because he claims he his nature has a better method of functioning. Although he does not insist that people remove to nature, he encourages people to do so because he believes that's the best way for them to learn about themselves and the world. One of the lessons he learns involves some criticism on modern society and possessions. An example that Thoreau brings up involves how farmers are chained to their farms as much as a person would be to jail. This can be explained by saying if you work to own things, you will restrict your freedom because you need to work to be able to own things. If you work to gain materialistic things, then you will not be able to gain personal freedom because you consume so much time with it. Thoreau's solution is that you have to realize what you need and what you want. Once you do this, then you are able to work less and work for only the necessary things. Since he is making this suggestion, he is also putting down the way society works.…
Good way to rule content or a country. Absolutism is political theory and form of government where unlimited, complete power is held by a centralized sovereign individual, with no checks or balances form any other part of nation or government.…
“Prussia is not a state which possesses an army, rather an army that possesses a state.”…
Rationality does not necessarily justify the theories behind absolutism; it was more the results of absolutism that made it justifiable at all. In the time of Louis XIV absolutism was justified by divine right and that, especially in the very Catholic French empire, made it acceptable to most people. There were many positive outcomes for absolutist France, such as the creation of a strong standing army and the unity and stability provided by a strong monarch . The previously unheard of sense of nationhood and pride felt throughout France during Louis XIV's reign was another positive result. Even the banishment of any religion other than Catholicism had positive effects in that the amount of religious resistances plummeted.…
Many neoconservatives were horrified at the extreme relativism that had grown in the 1960s. Simplistic ideas such as “it’s all right if it feels good” and “it just depends on your point of view” and “multiculturalism”-drove professors who had earlier tried to broaden their students’ views by stressing the relativity of all view points and cultures. Instead, students became vacuous rather than enlightened. In the Bush43 administration, highly placed neocons promoted war with Iraq both to protect the United states and to pull the Muslim world into democracy so that it would no longer spawn terrorism. Many old-fashioned republican conservatives, who dislike overseas crusades, despised the neocons, and they faded from power.…
Relativism and absolutism are both equally important approaches when it comes to morality. They are both relevant in that they each follow along with one another in their approaches but both offer different directions and beliefs. Relativism is one of the challenges of morality and reflects upon the existence of morality in relation to culture, society, historical/era and individuals, only representing one of these relations but not the others. Absolutism also believes that morality has relation to culture, society, historical/era and individuals but represents all any any of these relations, not just strictly one. In simpler terms, relativism says that nothing is intrinsically right or wrong while absolutism maintains that some things are…