Skip to main content

Why does Thoreau believe that "a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it?"

This quote comes in the 4th paragraph of “Civil Disobedience:”


After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in...

This quote comes in the 4th paragraph of “Civil Disobedience:”



After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?



Thoreau makes a solid point that our rules and laws are often made, not with common sense as the guideline, but solely by the number of people who agree. The assumption is that the more people we can count who believe in a certain stand on an issue, the more right and correct this stand is. And Thoreau wrote this essay well before legislators got the sizable contributions they get today from lobbyists, corporations, and special interest groups. Now he would have to add to the mix the number of dollars spent promoting an issue as well. He maintains that “majority rule” ignores the rights of the individual who may have good reason to act on his own belief system, his own higher law:



Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. … The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.



Think of any controversial issue we have today, and you can apply Thoreau’s interpretation to it. The use of medical marijuana and the right to have an abortion both come to mind. These are actions that may make perfect sense in specific individual situations, but which other people may oppose no matter what, and over which laws have come into question. Thoreau thinks government should be set up to allow for such individual differences to thrive, and somehow without breaking the law.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What are some external and internal conflicts that Montag has in Fahrenheit 451?

 Montag, the protagonist of Fahrenheit 451, faces both external and internal conflicts throughout the novel. Some examples of these conflicts are: External Conflicts: Conflict with the society: Montag lives in a society that prohibits books and critical thinking. He faces opposition from the government and the people who enforce this law. Montag struggles to come to terms with the fact that his society is based on censorship and control. Conflict with his wife: Montag's wife, Mildred, is completely absorbed in the shallow and meaningless entertainment provided by the government. Montag's growing dissatisfaction with his marriage adds to his external conflict. Conflict with the fire captain: Montag's superior, Captain Beatty, is the personification of the oppressive regime that Montag is fighting against. Montag's struggle against Beatty represents his external conflict with the government. Internal Conflicts: Conflict with his own beliefs: Montag, at the beginning of th...
Post a Comment
Read more

In A People's History of the United States, why does Howard Zinn feel that Wilson made a flimsy argument for entering World War I?

"War is the health of the state," the radical writer Randolph Bourne said, in the midst of the First World War. Indeed, as the nations of Europe went to war in 1914, the governments flourished, patriotism bloomed, class struggle was stilled, and young men died in frightful numbers on the battlefields-often for a hundred yards of land, a line of trenches. -- Chapter 14, Page 350, A People's History of the United States Howard Zinn outlines his arguments for why World War I was fought in the opening paragraph of Chapter 14 (referenced above). The nationalism that was created by the Great War benefited the elite political and financial leadership of the various countries involved. Socialism, which was gaining momentum in Europe, as was class struggle, took a backseat to mobilizing for war. Zinn believes that World War I was fought for the gain of the industrial capitalists of Europe in a competition for capital and resources. He states that humanity itself was punished by t...
Post a Comment
Read more

Where did Atticus take the light and extension cord in To Kill a Mockingbird?

Atticus brings the light to the courthouse jail so that he can protect Tom Robinson.  Atticus learns that Tom Robinson, his client, is in danger.  A group of white men want to prevent the trial and lynch Robinson. He is warned by a small group of men that appear at his house.  He refuses to back down.  Atticus knows that the Cunninghams will target his client, so he plans to sit up all night with... Atticus brings the light to the courthouse jail so that he can protect Tom Robinson.  Atticus learns that Tom Robinson, his client, is in danger.  A group of white men want to prevent the trial and lynch Robinson. He is warned by a small group of men that appear at his house.  He refuses to back down.  Atticus knows that the Cunninghams will target his client, so he plans to sit up all night with Jim if that’s what it takes to protect him.  Atticus tells the men that he will make sure his client gets his fair shake at the law.  “Link, that boy might go to the chair, but he’s not going till ...
Post a Comment
Read more