Thoreau discussion questions PDF

Preview

Summary

Weekly content assignment on Thoreau...

Description

Thoreau states that America should not seek to "cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." First, explain either: ● one group of people who "serve the State [...] not as men [...] but as machines", or ● one group of people "who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them". Second, explain what Thoreau thinks our duty is, what our duty is not, as well as one example that he gives of living up to or failing to live up that duty. I will be discussing the second type of man Thoreau describes. He believes that there is one group of man who is opposed to slavery with their words, but their actions do nothing to stop it. The group of people he is describing is the government politicians who claim that they speak for the people, but they speak for those who have the biggest voice in society, not necessarily the morally correct opinion. Our duty, according to Thoreau, is to do what is morally right, not what is lawful. We do not need to seek out and actively do good things to fight back against corruption, but you cannot sit idly by and go along with laws that are unjust.

Why do we have to have a government who is unjust?

First, explain one (1) of the objections that Thoreau says are often made against his theory, as well as how Thoreau refutes that objection. Second, argue that Thoreau's refutation is correct or incorrect, and why or why not.

“they cannot spare the protection of the existing government, and they dread the consequences of disobedience to it to their property and families.”

Thoreau states that people object to his claims because they dont want to be without a government and they don’t want to face the repercussions for breaking the rules. He goes on to say it's selfish to remain in the state if the state is corrupt because of the conveniences it provides. His solution is to go live in the wilderness and feed yourself so you don’t have to listen to the government. I personally feel that Thoreau’s refutation is incorrect. The reason why people are so complicit is because of the convenience that is provided by the government. He refuses to be part of the state until they are just. It makes sense for Thoreau to not be part of the state because he can take care of himself, but the average person cannot be without government supervision. His refutation is inaccessible for the average citizen, making it a bad example. I agree with the point he is making, but he does not give a good alternative to not being part of the state. He claims it's selfish to remain in the state if the state is corrupt because of the conveniences it provides.

Argue for or against one (1) of the two following statements:

● ●

Thoreau's theory of justice is consistent with one of the four theories of justice (or their refutations) in Republic Books 1 and 2. Thoreau's theory of justice is consistent with Hobbes' theory of justice in the Leviathan.

Hobbes cephalos Thoreau argues that men should do the right thing, and remove oneself from a situation where your ruling body is doing bad things. If the government is doing bad things, it is man’s responsibility to uninvolve himself with the powers that be and his responsibility alone. Petitions and asking nicely doesn’t do as much as just leaving. Nonviolently protesting is the smart decision, and he advises this by running off into the woods. Hobbes argues that men are inherently selfish. If given the opportunity, they would break the rules. Humans are constantly at a State of Warre due to their equality of ability, and this State of Warre is the antithesis of what Thoreau believes. The State of Warre allows man to obtain whatever they want, and it has no room for central government. Thoreau and Hobbes share very few thoughts about human nature and how we inherently behave, and it shows the 2 different sides of philosophical thinking....