Analysis Of Civil Disobedience
Despite the 1866 publication of “Civil Disobedience,” modern America can still turn to Henry David Thoreau’s philosophies to fix any injustices within the country. Thoreau eloquently states the mindset of the American majority of his time, which is nearly identical to that of today: they leave issues to the chance of voting, are fairly indifferent to oppression within the country, and consider the Bible and Constitution supreme authorities. Even former President Obama once stated, “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” which is practically an exact modern interpretation of “Civil Disobedience.” However, the
…show more content…
Gun control laws, abortion rights, death sentences, and gay rights all compromise the morals of certain groups. However, certain rights, such as gun control and gay rights, are supported simply because of the revered words of the Bible and Constitution, as Thoreau described. Thus, “Civil Disobedience” constructs an outline as to when an oppressed American such as me should rebel. I should rebel when I must “resign my conscious to the legislator,” compromising my morals simply because I was a minority voter. I should rebel when the government controls me, because I should control the government. I should rebel when the government refuses to be an advocate for change; it is up to me to take up action. In brief, it is my duty as a citizen to ensure the fair implication of government rather than a toleration. With this having been said, my opinion on “Civil Disobedience” is that it is positive food for thought. Although I don’t have the defiance in me to follow its suggestions, I believe it is a philosophy to be considered. I agree with Thoreau that the government should serve its people while avoid oppression, but I also believe it is impossible to keep everyone happy. In any legislature, one group’s ethical stance will be sacrificed for another’s. In all, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” is a timeless document that is essential literature for anyone under the American
Gun control laws, abortion rights, death sentences, and gay rights all compromise the morals of certain groups. However, certain rights, such as gun control and gay rights, are supported simply because of the revered words of the Bible and Constitution, as Thoreau described. Thus, “Civil Disobedience” constructs an outline as to when an oppressed American such as me should rebel. I should rebel when I must “resign my conscious to the legislator,” compromising my morals simply because I was a minority voter. I should rebel when the government controls me, because I should control the government. I should rebel when the government refuses to be an advocate for change; it is up to me to take up action. In brief, it is my duty as a citizen to ensure the fair implication of government rather than a toleration. With this having been said, my opinion on “Civil Disobedience” is that it is positive food for thought. Although I don’t have the defiance in me to follow its suggestions, I believe it is a philosophy to be considered. I agree with Thoreau that the government should serve its people while avoid oppression, but I also believe it is impossible to keep everyone happy. In any legislature, one group’s ethical stance will be sacrificed for another’s. In all, Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” is a timeless document that is essential literature for anyone under the American