Fighting For Rights and Justice: Civil Disobedience
With Mill’s argument for a limited or possibility for no government and then Hobbe’s view that society and men where selfish and needed a sovereign offer to get along, brings us to the work of Henry David Thoreau. Thoreau is famous for his isolation of society and his work Walden, he seen this approach of no government and see’s selfish man kind to, so his is an mixed theory. Thoreau knew that living in society was important, but didn’t think that the government should have such a say into ones personal life. Thoreau writes, “Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the last degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then?” He thought that the just laws and government should be more important, similar to the same concepts of a later famous philosopher, Martin Luther King. King took this same thought process when he protested and fought for rights and justice in a civil disobedience way
Mill’s argument for a limited government does’t seem that intelligible or reliable to me; I personally don’t think that would work at all. I would agree more with Hobbes’s view that men are selfish and need some kind of sovereignty for an overall peaceful environment. However, a someone mix between the two like Thoreau tried to do would be beneficial, but I don’t see mankind willing to change and accepts new ways of government, especially not one so extreme. It’s a good concept, but like most say, “you can’t teach a old dog new tricks!”
Philosophy is a such a broad and complex field that its offended hard to give a basic, simple definition. In a quick course, we’ve learned that Philosophy deals with subjects like religion, knowledge, reality, self, mind, body, freedom, ethics, and justice. Each subject builds on top of the other, from religion we get our beliefs about how we got here and why. Which moves to our knowledge of why we learn,...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document