Civil Disobedience
...utinize in any way? Most of Thoreau’s argument deals with slavery and war. These are very adamant causes for which to protest, but where in the course of human existence has there ever been a conflict resolved with civility when the protest is based upon the premise of “two wrongs will make a right?” I am inclined to agree with Thoreau in believing that the laws concerning slavery, when viewed in the context of this essay, were very unjust and should have been abolished. Where Thoreau failed to credit his standpoint was in the fact that the law itself was in direct contradiction to the constitution that was laid out as a guideline for civil coexistence. After all, does the constitution not state that all men are created equal? This should have been the point of his argument, not the belief that, as he states, “the only obligation which I have to assume is to do at any time what I think right.” Thoreau makes a point to belittle any man who, in regards to his country, will act in a way that is in accordance to what is regrettably necessary to further the advance of freedom and the rights to which he (Thoreau) holds so dear. He believes that if a man chooses to fight in accordance with his country, that these men are “…cowards that runaway to war.” Thoreau lived a very non-material life in a shack that he constructed. He held firm to the belief that since he was in no way dependant on the government, that the government was in no way just to legislate what was right or wrong for him. The way I see it is, if you so despise the smell of a pig, don’t live in the same vicinity of the pig and expect that the smell will not affect you. In other words, if you deem the policy of the land you claim to be unjust, and you stubbornly refuse to conform to the legislation of the officials you voted for, choose your residence somewhere else! I will take a firm stand against slavery and the oppression of a race simply for their nationality or even the color of their skin, but I cannot condone the breaking of laws as a just and intelligent means to rectify what is so clearly unjust. Not to trivialize the unfair treatment of individuals in any way, but this issue can be compared to a very simple analogy. Holding true to Thoreau’s belief of I will do what I feel is right, if a person were to believe that stealing were justified, and yet the government by which that person was governed was clearly against it, and set forth severe penalties for the execution of the act, would that person be justified for stealing so long as he was civil in its execution? This sounds ludicrous, and in an intelligent society would never be given credibility, but at ...