Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 29 Jan 2001 18:48:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
161 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> ...So, LMKWYT, or spark a discussion, by all means.
> When a person believes a law is unjust, what should he or she do? Break
> the law?
When a law is unjust we are under no obligation to follow said law. It may not
be worth breaking, but if it is, then there is nothing wrong with doing so.
> Thoreau refused to pay a tax in wartime, since he morally opposed the war,
Good for him. ;-)
> acting lawfully, albeit persistently and patiently, is better than
> breaking any law, unjust as it is. Thoreau was not convinced,
> but I was.
I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. It was better 150 years ago when
people in the underground railroad helped slaves escape their bondage. The law
is nothing compared to the right.
> I agree with Emerson, who believed that in order to make a change, one
> must “work within the framework of our laws” (78).
One can change the law by terrorizing those who support it. Laws are
systematically ignored by the people and by law enforcement. That is the
result of not violently opposing unjust laws. And these generally ignored laws
are pulled out of no where to punish people for completely unrelated
activities. The justice of governance is a sham.
> A person can make a
> change without breaking a law, but by trying to change that law, and
> changing public opinion about it.
And a person can do so for the duration of their entire life, acting immorally
the whole time because the law requires it, and die having changed nothing. No
thank you.
> if everyone who felt a law was unjust would break it, our
> society would fall apart.
Really? So in places (many of which exist, as I understand it) where
particular consensual sexual practices are unlawful, but widely practiced, is
it your suggestion that society has fallen apart, or is currently in the
process of falling apart?
> Emerson felt that a reformer needed
> to try to convince the majority, not go against it, in order to maintain
> social order.
That's sort of a truism isn't it? Of course you need to get the majority off
your back if you want to change something. This is basically true in all
systems, too. Unfortunately.
> In the end of the play, Henry heard Congressman Abraham Lincoln speak.
> Although Henry and Lincoln had similar ideas – opposing slavery and the
> Mexican War – Lincoln’s methods were similar to Emerson’s. Lincoln cast his
> influence in the existing political system, and later, as president,
> succeeded to abolish slavery. He knew that breaking the law would not
> further abolition, nor would it convince people of his righteousness or the
> law’s unjust actions.
Hahahaha. Lincoln violated the law of the land willy nilly in order to pursue
his war. (Uh oh...now you might ask me to support this statement. I'll try to
look it up tonight, not remembering the details off hand, but having been
convinced as a late teen.) The biggest example of which was punishing the
southern states for rightfully withdrawing from the union.
> Lincoln slowly gained power, and was patient with
> reform. Working with the system instead of against it, he achieved more than
> Thoreau, sitting in jail, could.
He murdered more American citizens by sending them to needles war than any
other figure in history. That's one hell of an achievement.
> To Thoreau’s defense it may be said that when an unjust law is passed in
> a dictatorial method, it may be appropriate to retaliate by refusing to
> comply with the law.
Define dictatorial? Why isn't the whim of the majority as bad as the whim of a
minority?
> Just as Rome was not built in a day, a single act of civil disobedience will
> rarely bring about major change.
To some extent it depends on your goals. Is my goal to implement "major
change" or is it merely to guide my own footsteps along the course of
righteousness? I tend to watch myself first. And I don't believe that the
ends justifies the means when the means are evil.
Chris
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
