Thoreau begins Civil Disobedience by saying that he agrees with the motto, "That government is best which governs least." Indeed, he says, men will someday be able to have a government that does not govern at all. As it is, government rarely proves useful or efficient. It is often "abused and perverted" so that it no longer represents the will of the people. The American government is necessary because "the people must have some complicated machinery or other, and hear its din, to satisfy that idea of government which they have." However, the only times when government has been useful has been when it has stood aside. Thoreau says that government does not, in fact, achieve that with which we credit it: it does not keep the country free, settle the West, or educate. Rather, these achievements come from the character of the American people, and they would have been even more successful in these endeavors had government been even less involved. Thoreau also complains about restrictions on trade and commerce. However, Thoreau then says that speaking "practically and as a citizen," he is not asking for the immediate elimination of government. Rather, for the moment, he is asking for a better government.
Thoreau argues that by answering to the majority, democracies answer the desires of the strongest group, not the most virtuous or thoughtful. A government founded on this principle cannot be based on justice. Why can't there be a government where right and wrong are not decided by the majority but by conscience? Thoreau writes, "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 we should be men first, and subjects afterward." He asserts that it is more important to develop a respect for the right, rather than a respect for law, for people's obligations are to do what is right.
After having presented his view of man's individualistic duties as a citizen, Thoreau turns to how citizens should respond to their government's injustices. He says that he does not believe that voting is the proper solution. Voting for justice is not really acting for it. Rather, it is "feebly" expressing your desire that the right prevail. A wise man will not leave justice to the chance of a majority vote. The majority will end up voting their interest, voting for what will benefit them. A principled person must follow his conscience. Furthermore, nowadays, there are no people who vote independently of what their political parties tell them to do. There are almost no men in America, according to Thoreau. He complains of people's lack of intellect and self-reliance, as well as their complacency.
Thoreau writes that a person does not have a duty actually to eliminate wrongs– even the most serious wrongs. A person may legitimately have other goals and pursuits. However, at the very least, a person must "wash his hands" of injustice and not be associated with something that is wrong. Thoreau then returns to the metaphor of the government-as-machine. He says that if an injustice is part of the "necessary friction" of the "machine of government," then it should be left alone. Perhaps the machine will wear smooth; in any case, it will eventually wear out. If the injustice has its own spring, rope or pulley, then one must consider whether the remedy is worse than the injustice. However, if the government requires one to be an agent of injustice toward another, then Thoreau says one must break the law. He urges the reader to be a "counter-friction" to the machine and not to participate in the wrong.
Thoreau maintains that "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also a prison." This is true today in Massachusetts, he says: in prison, a person can live with honor among the victims of injustice. Perhaps a person might think she could not be useful in jail, would be incapacitated to bring about change. In response to such a person, Thoreau replies that she does know how much stronger truth is than error–how much more powerfully a person can combat injustice once that person has experienced it for herself. He urges the reader to "cast your whole vote" against injustice, meaning not just a ballot but one's whole influence. A minority is irresistible when it uses its whole weight. For, if given the choice of renouncing slavery and war on the one hand and keeping all just men in prison on the other, the state will choose to eliminate its unjust policies.
Thoreau then addresses those readers who might raise the concern that people need the government's protection and who are worried about the consequences of civil disobedience to their property and family. He says that he himself would never want to think himself dependent on the State's protection. However, he acknowledges that if he refuses to pay taxes it will mean he will lose his property and that the state will harass his family. This is "hard," he admits: It is hard to live honestly and yet outwardly comfortably at the same time. Thus, he concludes that it is not worthwhile to accumulate property. One should be self-sufficient and farm only a small crop. "You must live within yourself," he tells the reader. He quotes Confucius as saying that if a state is not governed by reason, then riches are a source of shame. He reasons that it costs him less "in every sense" to pay the penalty of disobeying the State than it would to obey it. That is, less is lost in forgoing the government's protection and in suffering harassment to one's family, than in sacrificing one's integrity in passive compliance with the government's unjust policies. For if he were to sacrifice his integrity, Thoreau explains, "I should feel as if I were worth less" as a person.
Thoreau now turns to his personal experiences with civil disobedience. He says that he hasn't paid a poll tax for six years and that he spent a night in jail once because of this. His experience in jail did not hurt his spirit: "I saw that, if there was a wall of stone between me and my townsmen, there was a still more difficult one to break through, before they could get to be as free as I was." Since the State couldn't reach his essential self, they decided to punish his body. This illustrated the State's ultimate weakness, and Thoreau says that he came to pity the State. The masses can't force him to do anything; he is subject only to those who obey a higher law. He says that he has to obey his own laws and try to flourish in this way.
Thoreau concludes by saying that no one with legislative genius has yet appeared in America–such people are rare in the world's history. He writes that government's authority is "impure." To be just, authority must be based on the consent of the governed; it’s only rights are the rights that the individual gives it. The movement toward democracy constitutes progress toward true respect for the individual. However, democracy is not the last step that can be made. He says that he dreams of a State that respects the individual, a State that would not mind if a few individuals even chose to live independent of it altogether. This kind of State would prepare the way for an even more "perfect and glorious State."
Upon reading Civil Disobedience, I would imagine utilitarians would have a fit about the message being sent. Disobeying the law if it is unjust would most likely break the principle of utility, throwing it out more or less. If one did not agree with the law, then they ought to not follow it and accept the consequences. This goes directly against helping out the group. Not only is the one who disobeys failing to prove useful to the group, but they are counteracting the goals of society as well. Those who disobey simply do not prove useful in the eyes of a utilitarian.
Just as utilitarians would be enraged by such a discourse in society, altruists would find the same problems within civil disobedience. It cares little to none for the group in the present moment. However, while it goes against utilitarianism very strongly, in an altruistic light it can be see much better. Civil disobedience aims to better the government through removing injustice. While it prescribed that people disobey the laws they find unjust, the reason is to better the government for all.
Deontologically speaking, Civil Disobedience can seem to be proving the point of the individual. Doing what is right through reason rather than through what is told to us. If we dive a little deeper however, civil disobedience fails the very first categorical imperative. “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will it to become a universal law.†Let’s suppose now that everyone should disobey the law when they felt it to be unjust. Well, it’s possible that certain people would find that certain laws would be unjust to them and not to others. Along that same line, there would be an unjust law for everyone. If they then decided not to follow it, or even directly disobey the law, then there would be no more laws to follow in the first place. This would directly contradict the intention that civil disobedience sets out, therefore not following the theories of deontology.
Following the same idea of altruism to utilitarianism, egoism seems to have a better light to shine in civil disobedience as compared to deontology. Egoism at its base cares only for the self and while being punished for disobeying laws does not show care for the self, doing what is right and virtuous does. Civil disobedience does not find a much better “home†if you will in egoism but it does agree with its base message slightly more.
From the view of positive law, civil disobedience would be outrageous. Laws are set in place not to be just but to rule because of man's unjust nature. To believe in the inherent virtue of man would be unlike any positive law thinkers. The laws are how they are because someone with much more intellect has chosen for it to be that way. Civil disobedience prescribed to go directly against the uncommanded commander if that figure is unjust in their lawmaking.
The same message can be found when looking through the view of a social contract. Even though society has not signed this contract, it is our duty to follow it. Purposely going against the laws because we see them as unjust violates the social contract. At its core, the social contract aims to prove the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Civil disobedience goes directly against that. By saying individuals ought to disobey to go say that individuals should come first.
On the contrary, civil disobedience seems to find its home in natural law and virtue ethics. Natural law asserts that certain rights are inherent by virtue of human nature and can be understood universally through human reason. This is the exact same core that Thoreau builds his argument off of. The individual knows what it right and what is wrong yet the “machine†of the government causes friction in justice. It is the individual's duty to not stand by but to act according to their rights. If they suffer injustice then they must take it in their own hands to change it, for the individual knows right from wrong and just from unjust.
From either a nihilistic or relativistic view, civil disobedience follows both but only slightly. In nihilism, it is believed that all ethical schools are to be seen as false. While civil disobedience finds its core values the most similar with virtue ethics and natural law, it goes against the teachings of every other school. It doesn’t do this purposefully however, the teachings of civil disobedience seem not to care about the “false†teachings of the other schools. On the contrary to that belief, relativism asserts that all schools are equally true. While already stated that civil disobedience follows natural law more rigorously, it does tie in small pieces of other schools.
Thoreau was certainly critical of democracy and its rule by the majority; thus, for him, if civil disobedience damaged democratic institutions, there was no real harm done. However, those people who do value democracy might question how compatible civil disobedience is with this system of government. Democracy is ultimately about compromise; people accept the decision of the majority because they know that others will accept their decisions when they are in the majority. However, Thoreau argues that any such compromise on ethical issues is a moral sell-out. A person should never participate in evil, not even if it is the law. Therefore, Thoreau does not play by democracy's "rules of the game." Rather, he calls for people to remove themselves from the government when they believe that they are being asked to do something wrong. However, Thoreau does not fully disobey democracy's rules either: He accepts that by breaking one law (e.g., the law to pay taxes) he will be punished under another (criminal) law, and he does not say that people should try to avoid the consequences of their disobedience– they should not go into hiding or exile; they should not resist arrest. Rather, society must see the consequences of its laws; by staying in jail, we force society to consider whether it is willing to keep all just men in jail. Thus, Thoreau does believe in following certain laws–for this, too, can effectively change society.
Thoreau makes an important philosophical point here about the ways in which people are (and are not) responsible for harm that befalls others. Most significantly, he argues that individuals are responsible for injustices that they participate in. Participation has a broad meaning for Thoreau: Being a member of an unjust institution, even being a citizen of an unjust nation, makes a person a participant in injustice. Even paying taxes to an evil government is enough to leave a person morally tarnished. For this reason, Thoreau argues that people have a duty to disassociate from the government and to not support it either financially or as persons. However, Thoreau does not argue that there is a parallel duty to promote as much good as possible in the world. People have a duty not to cause evil, but they do not have a duty to work against evil that they did not cause. Morality does not require that a person work to bring about a "better" world. Rather, a person must simply not make the world any worse. Thoreau's distinction here is linked to his individualism: He argues that each person should live for himself and take advantage of his short time on earth to follow his own interests and goals. For Thoreau, a person can very legitimately have concerns that must take priority over improving the world; individuals should maintain their integrity by staying true to their values and concerns. However, precisely for this reason, a person is responsible for the evil that they perform–both directly and indirectly, via tacit support. Thus, there is a special duty not to cause or participate in evil.