Throughout the entire essay, Thoreau continually relates back to the Mexican-American War, which he despised. He also has a big qualm with slavery, another topic that he uses to illustrate some of his points unrelated to slavery and also in direct relation to slavery.
At the outset of the essay, Thoreau makes a bold statement and exclaims his belief in the maxim "That government is best which governs not at all." I immediately thought about what political affiliation he would have in the modern day. I think that this would put him at the libertarian end of things, wanting the government to keep their hands completely off society. I also assumed that he would be opposed to socialism, but what about communism? I think it is the common misconception that communism is also a super tight and strict form of government, but according to Marx, communism is a system without government. If there is no government, then there is no governing taking place, which is something Thoreau seems to be desiring. Regardless of what political party Thoreau belongs to, it no doubt raises the question: why would we want to get rid of the government? Thoreau goes into more depth with his answer to this, but I believe one of the main points he makes is that government functions merely as a expedient, that is to say, all it does is speed things up. Many would argue that government, specifically bureaucratic government (such as the U.S.), tends to bog down the system with its immense amount of paperwork and formalities. However, Thoreau viewed it as being a service which speeds up processes.
Another of his major points is that society is too mechanized, which is definitely something that ought to change. He states, "I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward." As the title of the essay suggests, Thoreau was calling for open warfare on the law and established order of the U.S. government at the time. He said that the law frequently produces injustices to everyone, to which we ought to rise against and stop respecting the law. If something is morally objectionable, then one ought to raise a fuss about it and then disobey it because you must be a man first, and a subject later. If you are merely a subject, I believe Thoreau would imagine you to be at a loss for your humanity because you become part of the machine rather than a unique individual human being. He uses the example of soldiers who frequently do things they would normally never do, but do them anyways because they are commanded to do so. They compromise their own morals in order to retain respect for the government and the law. I think I would be in accord with Thoreau on this stance because there is no government in the world that I would follow if it made me do something that went against any of my morals. I prize my humanity too dearly to be subjected to immoral activities imposed upon me by the government.
Another one of his main points is that people are hesitant to act and decry morally reprehensible activities. He relates this back to the war and slavery: "There are thousands who are in opinion opposed to slavery and to the war, who yet in effect do nothing to put an end to them." Clearly there are many individuals who find slavery and the war to be foolish ideas, yet no one (as of then) was rebelling against the government. He claims that "they will wait, well disposed, for other to remedy the evil." Rather than taking the individual initiative, they are going to wait for someone else to call out the government. To be perfectly honest, after reading this I found this statement to be incredibly true for myself. Typically, I find myself to be calling out immoral activities, but in the grand scheme of things, I think that I could definitely improve in this regard.
There is but little virtue in the action of masses of men. When the majority shall at length vote for the abolition of slavery, it will be because they are indifferent to slavery, or because there is but little slavery left to be abolished by their vote.When Katrina and I were discussing this essay, we both came to this passage and highlighted it and actually went on some wild tangents that Thoreau never discusses in this essay. One of the tough questions we had to deal with is whether or not morality and morals are inherent in human beings. Katrina was adamant that they were, but I was skeptical. As she explained her reasoning, she explained how the groups we are part of tend to shape our morals. An example of this, though not used by Katrina during our discussion, is Christianity. There are certain Christian ethics that people tend to adhere to because of their membership of the larger Christian community. However, I quickly pointed out that this means that our morals are shaped by society then. We are not ourselves knowledgeable about the differences between right and wrong. We determine what is right and wrong by living within a community and being surrounded by people who teach us morals. We are not born with this inherent ability to make a distinction between moral and immoral, right and wrong. I believe, if memory serves me right, that we agreed to disagree on that topic. However, it raised another wildly off topic discussion.
Throughout this piece, Thoreau claims that the government ought to bow down to individual wishes made by its individual citizens. That is to say, rather than going with majority sentiment, a proper government ought to listen to every single individual and accommodate them. ((Side note: This is, in my opinion, a rather silly idea because then no consistency can be reached, as appeasing Joe Blow will likely anger Jane Doe.)) We got into a discussion of politics and how I thought that Thoreau was angry (and would still be angry) with the two-party system we have in the United States. Yes, we do have some Independents in our government, but overall, the political environment of the U.S. has been dominated by Repubs and Dems. This stands in contrast to many European parliamentary systems (notably the UK, France, Russia, Germany, India [yeah, not European, but once ruled by Europeans and therefore greatly influenced by European politics]) wherein various parties have a say in government. While sometimes a single party can obtain a majority in parliament, it is more often than not the case that parties must form coalitions in order for the government to function and get things done. Under coalition governments, if one member of the government dissents and goes against another party, thus withdrawing their seats in that government, the parliament is dissolved, and new elections must be cast. My point in bringing this example up is, in a certain sense, two-fold. First, it seems that in these European parliamentary systems (often referred to simply as multi-party systems, as these systems exist in countries outside of Europe) more individualized voices can be heard, whereas in the U.S. you have to side with either the Red or the Blue, you do not get the pink, purple, yellow, green, and tan options to choose from. So, while it is not a perfect system, multi-party systems, I would imagine, would tend to please Thoreau. While this is no perfect solution to the problem Thoreau is concerned with, it does increase individualization of government. Additionally, it also gives more individual right to govern, as exemplified by the simple fact that if one member of the government dissents, the government is dissolved and new elections must be called. In conclusion, then, it seems that Thoreau was really angry with the American political atmosphere and its lack of individualization and personal catering to its citizens.
I think I may stop there for this post, as I am noticing it already getting extremely long. I definitely have more on Thoreau and other philosophers as well, so be prepared and bring your thinking caps.
No comments:
Post a Comment