Subject:
|
Re: Essay on Emerson vs. Thoreau; civil disobedience
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 30 Jan 2001 01:11:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
236 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Eaton writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Shiri Dori writes:
> > Emerson argued with Thoreau and tried to
> > convince him that acting lawfully, albeit persistently and patiently, is
> > better than breaking any law, unjust as it is. Thoreau was not convinced,
> > but I was.
>
> Personally I'm gonna have to go with Chris and Lar on this one... Most of
> the time, you're probably right. But it doesn't make it always so (At least
> I don't think so).
Yep, I can totally see that. For God's sake, I don't think that one should
*always* abide by the laws, especially when reaching such atrocities like
your example. Larry has a point too there, when the law just goes too far
then I'd rather not follow it. While writing the essay I actually was
considering WWII, and Nazi soldiers who killed millions because they were
following orders. I asked my dad for help to think about people who worked
"within the system" (since I was trying to emulate Emerson's ideas), but
every example he could think of was, when we thought it through, turned out
to involve civil disobedience anyway. I was considering changing my POV and
trying to prove Thoreau's side, but I felt like that would be (a) too easy
and (b) too common. I'll bet everyone else in my class chose Thoreau, and
use MLK as one of their contemporary examples. I really felt like it
wouldn't be a good essay. And since I was restricted to choosing one
character of the play, and one only, (my teacher specifically said not to
combine views) I decided to go with Emerson anyway.
> But for the most part, however, I agree with you. Would I not pay my taxes
> because I didn't support a war? Nah, that doesn't push me to feel the level
> or immorality that killing babies does. So what it boils down to is: if it
> goes against your morality to the point at which you could more easily live
> with yourself in punishment for your crime rather than obey the law, you're
> perfectly 'right' in your decision.
Agreed.
> But similarly, the government is equally
> 'right' in punishing you.
You mean that you should "peacefully accept the consequences", yes?
> And if enough people disobey the law, the
> government had BETTER change or else it won't be much of a government for
> long. To disallow change in a government is most likely a path towards a
> self-destructive government.
Agreed once more.
-Shiri
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
36 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
