Legality vs. Morality feat. Henry David Thoreau
Legality vs. Morality feat. Henry David Thoreau
In the topic of "Legality vs. Morality", I am not only looking at unjust laws and political corruption, but also the free will of man to follow his own conscience.
Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" talks of man and nature, and of how government inhibits the free will of human beings in exchange for a certain security. Thoreau believes that this conforming to the will of government is often at odds with the natural dignity of humanity.
"Civil Disobedience" begins with the motto "That government is best which governs least"(1), and I am inclined to agree. Thoreau goes on to say that the government "has not the vitality of a single living man": We as humans are governed internally by our conscience, whereas the government and its policies are enacted by majority votes, often by politicians with more power than the average man. By blindly following the government's laws, a person is essentially waiving their inner thought processes on right and wrong, in lieu of following a "one size fits all" set of government policies.
The problem of an overbearing government is that following your own conscience could land you in prison or worse. It is not necessarily that blind followers of government respect the law, but rather that they have resigned to the law in favor of having a place in society. Thoreau argues that every man has a conscience as an inner lawmaker, and that it is unacceptable to relinquish that conscience to the lawmaker. I agree, as humans are a creation of a higher power, and government is but a creation of a strong minority of humans.
Therefore, is it up to us as humans to govern our own well-being? Thoreau argues yes, stating that "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right."
Even though Thoreau's essay is still relevant today, I would like to apply it to a modern-day example:
If two men/women choose to marry in today's day and age, and their state does not permit it, they are seen as breaking the law. However, keeping in mind that the two subjects love each other enough to get married, their inner conscience says otherwise. Majority votes pass laws, thus the Government takes a utilitarian standpoint regardless of their marriage not harming anyone or interfering with another's marriage (2). This is simply an example of the government overstepping its bounds and allowing personal beliefs to govern the conscience of other humans.
Thoreau goes on to mention an "undue respect of law" by describing a quarry of soldiers marching to their war against their wills and common sense. When "Civil Disobedience" was written, soldiers did not have the choice to go to war, and were legally bound to following the commands of an "unscrupulous man in power". This brings me to another modern day example of the war on Iraq, which many deemed unnecessary, with many people marching into the war out of respect for their country. To quote Thoreau, the reason behind the war turned out to be "unscrupulous". We were not in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but in a very abridged summary, rather there were people in Government who wished to impact the oil market (3).
One could say that the soldiers fighting the war in Iraq believed the government knew best, and did not research the real motive and allow their conscience to impact their decision on whether to join the war or not.
Evident more than ever today is the "bystander" effect that we as people have on the choices made by the government. We can send letters to our congressmen and senators, but ultimately a lobbyist or Super-PAC with deep pockets will come along to influence their decisions as we look on helplessly. Therefore we must not feel inclined to influence the law by votes, but rather by actions themselves. "Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence", as Thoreau says, is the way I choose to live. By following my conscience and inner sense of morality, I promote change through actions rather than by hoping that the government will eventually come to its senses.
Thoreau agrees with taking action, saying that "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow, Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded?" (4) In laymen terms, one can take whacks from the government by not obeying the rules that are set in order to live in society, but nothing will hurt worse than disobeying your inner beliefs, your natural lawmaker: Your conscience and sense of morality. It is better to live according to what you think is right, and be ostracized by a human-implemented government, than to live with regrets and fault progress in society by taking the law in a bent-over position.
In conclusion, "Civil Disobedience" is not a promotion of anarchy, but rather the projection that humans have a natural lawmaker inside of them, their conscience. The world would be a better place if the government relinquished most of its power and allowed humans to live by their inner-built code of morality. By enacting laws with a "one size fits all" policy, we relinquish control of our personal sense of right and wrong to the government, and as we are all born with a conscience, doing so seems unfathomable.
In the topic of "Legality vs. Morality", I am not only looking at unjust laws and political corruption, but also the free will of man to follow his own conscience.
Henry David Thoreau in "Civil Disobedience" talks of man and nature, and of how government inhibits the free will of human beings in exchange for a certain security. Thoreau believes that this conforming to the will of government is often at odds with the natural dignity of humanity.
"Civil Disobedience" begins with the motto "That government is best which governs least"(1), and I am inclined to agree. Thoreau goes on to say that the government "has not the vitality of a single living man": We as humans are governed internally by our conscience, whereas the government and its policies are enacted by majority votes, often by politicians with more power than the average man. By blindly following the government's laws, a person is essentially waiving their inner thought processes on right and wrong, in lieu of following a "one size fits all" set of government policies.
The problem of an overbearing government is that following your own conscience could land you in prison or worse. It is not necessarily that blind followers of government respect the law, but rather that they have resigned to the law in favor of having a place in society. Thoreau argues that every man has a conscience as an inner lawmaker, and that it is unacceptable to relinquish that conscience to the lawmaker. I agree, as humans are a creation of a higher power, and government is but a creation of a strong minority of humans.
Therefore, is it up to us as humans to govern our own well-being? Thoreau argues yes, stating that "It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation I have a right to assume, is to do at any time what I think right."
Even though Thoreau's essay is still relevant today, I would like to apply it to a modern-day example:
If two men/women choose to marry in today's day and age, and their state does not permit it, they are seen as breaking the law. However, keeping in mind that the two subjects love each other enough to get married, their inner conscience says otherwise. Majority votes pass laws, thus the Government takes a utilitarian standpoint regardless of their marriage not harming anyone or interfering with another's marriage (2). This is simply an example of the government overstepping its bounds and allowing personal beliefs to govern the conscience of other humans.
Thoreau goes on to mention an "undue respect of law" by describing a quarry of soldiers marching to their war against their wills and common sense. When "Civil Disobedience" was written, soldiers did not have the choice to go to war, and were legally bound to following the commands of an "unscrupulous man in power". This brings me to another modern day example of the war on Iraq, which many deemed unnecessary, with many people marching into the war out of respect for their country. To quote Thoreau, the reason behind the war turned out to be "unscrupulous". We were not in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction, but in a very abridged summary, rather there were people in Government who wished to impact the oil market (3).
One could say that the soldiers fighting the war in Iraq believed the government knew best, and did not research the real motive and allow their conscience to impact their decision on whether to join the war or not.
Evident more than ever today is the "bystander" effect that we as people have on the choices made by the government. We can send letters to our congressmen and senators, but ultimately a lobbyist or Super-PAC with deep pockets will come along to influence their decisions as we look on helplessly. Therefore we must not feel inclined to influence the law by votes, but rather by actions themselves. "Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper merely, but your whole influence", as Thoreau says, is the way I choose to live. By following my conscience and inner sense of morality, I promote change through actions rather than by hoping that the government will eventually come to its senses.
Thoreau agrees with taking action, saying that "When the subject has refused allegiance, and the officer has resigned his office, then the revolution is accomplished. But even suppose blood should flow, Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded?" (4) In laymen terms, one can take whacks from the government by not obeying the rules that are set in order to live in society, but nothing will hurt worse than disobeying your inner beliefs, your natural lawmaker: Your conscience and sense of morality. It is better to live according to what you think is right, and be ostracized by a human-implemented government, than to live with regrets and fault progress in society by taking the law in a bent-over position.
In conclusion, "Civil Disobedience" is not a promotion of anarchy, but rather the projection that humans have a natural lawmaker inside of them, their conscience. The world would be a better place if the government relinquished most of its power and allowed humans to live by their inner-built code of morality. By enacting laws with a "one size fits all" policy, we relinquish control of our personal sense of right and wrong to the government, and as we are all born with a conscience, doing so seems unfathomable.
