In his famous essay "Civil Disobedience," Henry David Thoreau does not so much argue that conscience should play a role in government but rather that people of conscience will more often find themselves in opposition to government. In fact, at the very beginning of the essay, Thoreau makes a radical assertion that "government is at best but an expedient" and that in an ideal society "that government is best that governs not at all." In other words, the consciences of the people will provide sufficient impetus to cause them to do the right thing, without the necessity of governmental intrusion. Realizing that people are not ready for such an idealist interpretation of individual intent, Thoreau adds, "I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government."
However, the difficulty with forming a better government, says Thoreau, is that "the mass of men serve the State thus, not as men mainly, but as machines, with their bodies." They do whatever the state demands of them, with "no free exercise whatever of the judgment or of the moral sense." In other words, as they serve the state, their consciences do not come into use at all. Other people serve the state with their minds, but "they rarely make any moral distinctions." As for the very few people who truly serve the government with their consciences, Thoreau writes,
A very few, as heroes, patriots, martyrs, reformers in the great sense, and men, serve the State with their consciences also, and so necessarily resist it for the most part; and they are commonly treated by it as enemies.
Thoreau's point is that the role of conscience in government is most often achieved in opposition to it. As an example, he states that as far as the American government of his day is concerned, a person of conscience "cannot without disgrace be associated with it." He emphasizes that the government of the time, which condoned slavery and warred with Mexico, must be opposed. A person's obligation does not stop at voting. If the majority agrees on something that is wrong, it is the obligation of a person of conscience to oppose that wrong, even if it puts them at odds with the government.
As an example of how a person of conscience should behave toward injustice in government, Thoreau relates his own experience of his refusal to pay taxes. He refuses to pay poll taxes that support the Mexican war, and as a result, he is locked up in jail. He writes, "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." He stresses that the State can only imprison a person's body and not their intellectual or moral sense. He also adds that he is perfectly willing to pay the highway tax and support schools, which are for the good of all.
In conclusion, Thoreau's opinion in "Civil Disobedience" is that the role of conscience concerning government is most often to oppose it.
Thoreau understood that government and moral conscience are incompatible to each other. Thoreau was a fierce critic of the US government and a staunch abolitionist and anti-war writer. He believed that it is far more important to follow one's conscience than to follow the law. Thoreau also understood that majority decisions does not always translate into ethical decisions, and this extends to majority decisions made in government/through voting.
For Thoreau, being disobedient and following one's sense of conscience and moral compass creates a just society, not following the rule of law. Thoreau believed that government is generally a useless institution that only serves to oppress, and as such, did not believe in the concept of reforming the government, but in turning away from participating in government, such as paying taxes, petitioning, or voting. Instead, Thoreau sought for the creation of communities that refused to be governed, particularly by such genocidal states such as the United States.
Thoreau saw the United States as an unjust government that thrived on slavery and wars of aggression. As such, his understanding of conscience was rooted in neither state institutions nor from the power of majority rule. For instance, the majority of white society accepted and supported slavery, but Thoreau believed that majority acceptance does not make something morally correct.
Henry David Thoreau (1817–1862) was a prominent nineteenth century American intellectual and writer. Ralph Waldo Emerson was his mentor and friend; the secluded cabin in which Thoreau lived for two years was on Emerson's land. Thoreau's ideas on conscience government are found in his Civil Disobedience.
Thoreau always sought to do the right thing. He rejected the pursuit of material gain and preferred a simple life in harmony with nature. He was a fierce critic of both slavery and the Mexican War (1846–1848). Thoreau rightly believed that territory acquired by defeating Mexico would be opened up to slavery. He refused to pay a poll tax to the American government because he did not want to support a government guilty of wartime aggression and slavery propagation. He spent one night in jail before someone—probably an aunt—paid the tax for him. Thoreau believed that if the government was wrong, the individual had a moral obligation to oppose it:
Under a government which imprisons unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison.
Thoreau feels that the rule of conscience ought to replace the practice of majority rule in governments. To this end, he asks, "Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?" Just because a majority votes for something or says that it is right does not necessarily mean that it is right. In fact, he more than implies that the majority often chooses wrongly. If people created laws based on what their conscience dictates, rather than deciding by majority rule, our laws would be more just.
Further, he says, "Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." In other words, because so many of us feel that we must respect the law above all else, we can—inadvertently or not—actually end up supporting unjust laws and adding to any injustice those laws create. However, if we placed satisfying our own consciences above our desire to obey the law, we would have a more just society.
Thoreau believed that conscience should be what decides right and wrong, not majority rule.
In an essay that he wrote while in jail, famously known as "Civil Disobedience," Thoreau writes,
Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?—in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable?
In a thought-provoking question, Thoreau asks if the citizen "must ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator?" If this is the case, Thoreau argues, why then does every man even have a conscience? Men must do what they believe is morally right, not what furthers some desire for selfish advancement, power, or control. If a man allows the legislator to determine outcomes, he is like a man who sits upon the shoulders of another man, Thoreau writes. Instead, the individual must protest an unjust government and act upon his conscience. True to his convictions, Thoreau refused to pay a tax to the state of Massachusetts because he is opposed to the federal government's support of slavery. As a result, he was forced to spend the night in jail until a relative paid his fine.
No comments:
Post a Comment