Individualism In Civil Disobedience

Words: 836
Pages: 4

Is there ever a time when it would be looked upon as right or just to violate the law? Henry David Thoreau thought so. In his essay he gives his arguments for when, and why it would be acceptable to institute these actions. He concluded the chief reason to carry out this action would be to rely on one's own conscience over the government. In "Civil Disobedience" he concluded, "The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right." (1597). In other words, there are times when it is morally right to violate society's law when that law is unjust, violates the conscience, or ethical principles that an unbiased person seeing the same evidence would believe to be true also. Thoreau felt very strongly about individualism and the role that played in a society's government. He was not under the allusion that "might makes right" and argued that just because the majority rules does not mean they do so with justice. Rather they would rule from that position because they possessed the most power. Perhaps Thoreau was contemplating Aristotle when he said, “...it is not always the same thing to be a good man and a good citizen.”(Nicomachean Ethics). When faced with the choice, Thoreau believed that the good man was the correct one to make when it …show more content…
Gandhi defied the British Empire in an effort to free his people from unjust rule and taxation by deliberately violated those laws to bring attention to them. Gandhi would say that violating an immoral law is not disrespect for the law, but rather the highest respect for it, "...an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for law."(Peace