Oct 03 2008
To Thine Own Self Be True (Period 1)
Describe in a few sentences Thoreau’s position on individual accountability as presented in his famous essay, “Civil Disobedience.”
28 responses so far
Create a free edublog to get your own comment avatar (and more!)
Thoreau’s philosophy differs from Edwards’ from the standpoint of individual countability in several ways. First, while Edwards only claims that people who think of God as almighty and worship him will be led to hell by God’s own “hand”. The other wicked souls, he feels, will be led to hell by the devil. Meanwhile, Thoreau allows people to have more freedom when going to heaven in that they dont have to look a certain way or worship a certain idol. Thoreau also has more faith within the actual individual itself, as Edwards uses any flaw within a human to exploit them. Basically, Thoreau has more respect and leniency towards the individual than Edwards would ever consider.
[Reply]
Both Edwards’ and Thoreau’s views on personal accountability differ greatly. While Edwards preaches that individuals cannot chose their own path but should instead follow the path of God he says that all others are doomed for hell. In contrast, Thoreau believes that individuals should have the right to act according to their individual morals and beliefs even if they do not match those of the law. Further, he believes that every individual is accountable for themself. Moreover, this shows much more lenience than Edwards’. While Edwards believes that individuals need to live a certain way, Thoreau believes that one should not have to follow the morals of another.
[Reply]
Edwards and Thoreau differ in the idea of individual accountability because Edwards thinks that people have to take control of their own actions. It is their own fault when they sin and go against God, not society’s. Thoreau’s “Civil Disobedience” shows that he thinks a person can do good things, but in the end the society and the government stop them from succeeding. An individual should have morals even if they go against what the government thinks is correct. Thoreau believes in personal morals, while Edwards believes in having the same ideas as God.
[Reply]
I believe Thoreau’s philosophy of an individual’s accountability is all in tune with that person’s conscience. He states, “Is there not a sort of blood shed when the conscience is wounded? Through this wound a man’s real manhood and immortality flow out…” meaning that the person’s conscience is the credited for their action since it is a powerful device. He also explains how government installs ideologies that do no improve rights of a human. Thoreau states, “Only his voice can hasten the abolition of slavery who asserts his own freedom by his vote,” meaning that governments should not even hold votes because the people should already be doing right in the first place and not to question freedom of another man. Edwards’ standpoint of individual accountability all lies within that person, and in the end they will receive a physical punishment. Thoreau on the other hand, has the belief of the conscience feeling an inner pain throughout the person’s life rather that a more physical experience in the hands of an angry God.
[Reply]
Thoreau’s concept of individual accountability is different than the concept of Edwards’ individual accountability. Thoreau holds the individual responsible for one’s actions, or for not having an action at all. If a person wants something changed in his government, wanting is not enough for Thoreau; you’re not a real man if you just want things. You have to be the one to actually start a change or make the change. If you’re upset with a law, you should be outside the white house or government establishment petitioning the law as soon as possible. Edwards, on the other hand, holds everyone accountable for everything and anything. Focusing on the individual is too small of a scope for Edwards, his target is the mass population. He tries to hold everyone responsible for sinning and and evil, yet proclaims that only a few can be saved from the pits of hell. Individual accountability does not cover it for Edwards because everyone is equally sinful in his eyes.
[Reply]
In Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience, he shares his thoughts on personal responsibility. While he does talk about being accountable for one’s self, he also talks about how the decisions of one person can affect so many others. He encourages people to take this into account and stand up for the greater good, rather than doing nothing or only thinking of themselves.
[Reply]
Thoreau is very much fixated upon the idea that man does not have to submit to the authority of a government that is corrupt, or faulty. The assertion of this idea creates the understanding that Thoreau believes in the power of the individual over the society. Lawlessness can be abided as long as the laws that are being broken were with error. The individual, therefore, is given the power and the right to interpret laws of governance and society in his own manner. This entirely conflicts with the views of Edwards, who believes that the individual is to be completely and unquestionably subservient to the authority, the authority there being God. The individual has no place to dare put his own inferences of the rules to the test, or even dare think along a different path. While Thoreau believes in the betterment of the individual in opposing the flawed government, Edwards more than happily denounces those who should align themselves in a path different to the supreme power.
[Reply]
Thoreau and Edwards share different viewpoints concerning individual accountability. According to Edwards, there is only one way to think and one way to act, which revolves around God. Edwards strictly expressed his opinions and beliefs and claimed that whoever does not follow will have extreme consequences, such as being sent to hell. On the other hand, Thoreau believes people have the right to think and act how they want, and does not set a specific set of rules on how to live as Edwards does. Thoreau would rather see a sense of diversity among people and their morals rather than everyone following one another’s beliefs.
[Reply]
In Thoreau’s essay, Civil Disobedience, he places great emphasis on personal accountability. If a citizen sees that a certain law is not just then they are allowed to break that law, since the process of revoking laws is a long one. Thoreau even states that the individual is the ultimate for of government. The individual should not have to pay taxed to things that he or she does not believe in either. That individual should only pay for taxes that would benefit him or herself. Thoreau does not approve of democracy or mob-ocracy saying that both types of government still do not do enough justice to the individual.
[Reply]
Thoreau’s philosophy about individual accountability seems to be the contrast of that of Edwards. Thoreau believes that one should believe in one’s own morals and beliefs especially if that means defying the all too powerful government. He respects those who think for themselves and do not follow the governments every guide line, but act on what they feel is best and right. However, Edwards does not promote individuality at all. He strongly believes that everyone should follow the Christian faith under God. His opinion on this is so strong that he is convinced that if one does not follow than they will not be saved from Hell, but welcomed.
[Reply]
Edwards and Thoreau actually have a fairly similar view on individual accountability. The difference is that the view shown by Edwards is more direct. His basic philosophy is that god is all powerful, but he does not control individual humans because then he couldn’t blame them for messing up. Admittedly he describes it somewhat more eloquently than that, but the basic idea is still there. On the other hand, Thoreau prefers to explain that human mistakes are actually most often the fault of society, what with people being jailed if they refuse to support injustices and all. However, he makes sure to stress that obeying the standards of society are still the responsibility of the individual, and thus that anyone who pays taxes is automatically corrupt for supporting the institution.
[Reply]
Thoreau believes that a person’s accountability depends on their conscience. They have the right to voice their opinions, and express their viewpoints. When they feel that something, like a tax, for example, is unjust, they can refuse to pay it if they don’t personally benefit from it. Edward’s believed that only one set of beliefs were correct, only one set of morals was right. Thoreau believes that people can all have their own different set of beliefs, even if they have to defy the government.
[Reply]
Thoreau wrote with a disparaging view on government and its purpose. He believed that the government was created to diminish the power and the voice of the people. Although the authority was stronger, its philosophy was not always the best. The people had to do what they thought was right and not adhere to the popular thinking. He encouraged people to renounce what they were always told to do, such as ridding of the sinners, and instead just to not join their followers. Overall, Thoreau believed that a person must protest on his or her own, like himself. The individual should not join a group by petitioning or voting, even if it is for an honorable cause, because it would not do any good.
[Reply]
Thoreau blames the common person for accepting the wrongs of society and says that they say things but never do them. He says he might understand their situation and their choices because they accept it rather than lose their property or freedom. He blames the common person for not sacrificing themselves for the common good as he has done. He also says societal problems cause individuals to become bad people. Edwards blames the choices of people as being the cause of societal problems. He accuses everyone for being evil and says they must repent. Edwards and Thoreau both say individuals are accountable but Thoreau is less angry and more understanding than Edwards.
[Reply]
Through his sermons, Jonathan Edwards stressed one’s individual accountability to God; that is, a single person’s responsibility to make Bible-approved choices so as to please the omniscient being, or face the agony of eternal hellfire. Henry David Thoreau, sometimes cited as a individualist anarchist, advocated that the relation of the individual to the state is one of a master to his servants, that people should be left to their own devices as much as humanly possible, and did not stress any particular religious link or affiliation. Essentially, Edwards believes that the individual is indeed important, but only in the role of servant to a higher power, while Thoreau states that the individual is only a servant to himself, and must do his utmost to preserve his liberties.
[Reply]
Thoreau’s philosophy on individual accountability is truly a unique spin on the concept of individual accountability itself. He believes that on some intangible level a person is obligated to themselves to express their ideals, even if those ideals stray from mainstream thinking. However, this is not the most unique facet of his philosophy, at instances he seems to preach that it is alright to try and overturn majority and popular rulings if they do not apply to your own morals or go against your personal judgment. This gives his philosophy an air of controversy and even seems to be encourage anarchy. To a twenty-first century reader it is truly a starling piece because the meaning of democracy to us is not centered around personal will but on the will of the majority. It is ambiguous if the true purpose of the work was to popularize anarchy, but it is evident that like the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau this work may well be an influence to anarchist tenets. He expresses a strong sentiment that the highest court of judgment is one’s own conscience and that one should not sway or stray from personal principles.
[Reply]
Thoreau’s philosophy differs from Edwards’ standpoint of individual accountability because unlike Edwards’ who believes that everyone is potentially a sinner and that only God is keeping them out of hell, Thoreau believes that men have the power to change the world and that they should make that change. He believes that the American government is corrupt and that men should do something to make it better so that the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power. He explains that societal problems can create bad people, whose mistakes are actually the society’s fault as people are jailed for refusing to support injustices. Overall, Thoreau believes that people should follow their own beliefs, not a specific set of rules on how to live as Edwards does.
[Reply]
In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau emphasizes his view of individual accountability as a driving force in the world. He sees government as a useless obstruction and should be ignored or advoided whenever possible. Thoreau thinks every person is responsible for themself and their own actions only. Instead of trying to fix everything, people should focus on their own lives and morals and act accordingly. This way, neither blame for problems nor appreciation for solutions is given to anyone other than the individual whom they affect. Humans are far from powerless and shouldn’t let government treat them as though they are.
[Reply]
Throeau and Edwards two philosophies differ greatly.
Edward’s theorized that there was only one accurate belief for people to believe in. If they do not follow the same beliefs that he does, it automatically makes them wrong. Where as Thoreau’s philosophy is more about how one’s liability depends on there own morals. He believes that people have the right to convey their viewpoints however they feels so inclined to do,that they should have their own beliefs even if they have to break laws to do so.
[Reply]
When reading Thoreau’s essay Civil Disobedience, you get the chance to look deep into his ideas regarding personal responsibility. He appears to be torn between how one is accountable for oneself in all things but also how people can be swayed and affected by the decisions of others. He discussed how people should not be persuaded by only one of this factors but do what is ultimately the right thing to do. Just because your descions are immediately affecting you does not mean you can be selfish and think only of yourself.
[Reply]
Thoreau’s beliefs are definitely different from those of Edwards. He believes that having your own conscience and having control over your own actions is the way to live. He talks about how the best government is having no government or no control over the people. He supports this by saying that laws formed by the government limit the people from bringing change to their lives. An example of this is how some people use to think that slavery was wrong but could never did anything about it because it was a law. He wants the people to be the change they want to see. In order to do this Thoreau thinks that there can’t be control over the individuals. Compared to Edwards this is definitely different because Edwards believes that there should be control since he had lived his life guided by his religion. Thoreau wants the people’s actions to come from their own conscience.
[Reply]
Thoureau’s position on personal accountability is an interesting one. Though clearly not new, it is a unique viewpoint for this generation. For all the talk in the world today about how great it is to work in groups and only garner some responsibilty, about the wonderful (if ambiguous) “establishment”, Thoreau writes that ultimately, each person is accountable and responsible for their own happiness. It doesn’t necessarily come from others. This doesn’t mean that happiness is created by selfishness, it simply means that self awareness (and analysis) is just as important as interpersonal awareness. We often forget that.
[Reply]
Thoreau believes that the government is too controlling over its people, and that, “The mass of men serve the state…not as men…but as machines, with their bodies.” He thinks it is up to us to overthrow the government, and get rid of the giant corporate help and the random armies and the brainwashed people.
[Reply]
Edwards’ standpoint of individual accountability contrasted that of Thoreau because Thoreau was a firm believer in self action while Edwards’ preached a reliance on God’s mercy.
Thoreau criticizes the tendency of people to follow the majority and the government rather than act on their own beliefs. He says, “A wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority.” He believes that it is the responsibility of the people to recognize that the government is a corrupt institution and that they must stay true to their beliefs by refusing to subject to it in any way. He believed paying certain taxes was hypocritical. Thoreau also pronounced that just voting for justice was not a demand but simply a request for change. This method was not successful. He wrote most passionately against slavery and the Mexican War.
[Reply]
Thoreau and Edwards’ individual accountability differ greatly. Thoreau believes that there are multiple ways to get to heaven, rather than Edwards’ single way to get to the after life. Thoreau believes you have the right to choose what path in life is the right one for you. There isn’t anything chosen for you by God or you aren’t set to be something, Thoreau believes your life is what you make of it. Thoreau’s individual accountability greatly differs because to him, you take your choice, you don’t have to have someone choose a path for you.
[Reply]
In his essay, Thoreau discusses individual accountability in society. He talks about how man chooses his behavior based on what he believes is right rather then what is actually right. Thoreau uses government as an example. If the government passes a law that the public does not agree with, then the people will become defiant and choose not to obey the law because it is not in their best interest.
[Reply]
Thoreau feels as though individuals are accountable for their own actions and may act on their ethic or morals as they feel fit. He believes that having control over one’s own actions is the way to live life. He thinks that having a government is hindering the freedom of the people, in that laws stop people from acting on their morals if the acts are illegal.
[Reply]
Ignorance, prejudice, and fear are most definitely linked. Those who are ignorant to the way things exist in reality tend to be afraid of them. For example, many people are unaware of the way airplanes or roller coasters work and are therefore afraid to ride them. Prejudice then stems from the fear. When people fear things, they distance themselves or are intolerant of them. And example of ignorance, prejudices, and fear coinciding is the Crusades. The Crusades were a religious war in which people of the Christian faith waged war against anyone who disagreed with their beliefs. This is a prime example of ignorance, the
Crusaders were uninformed of the beliefs of others prejudice, they hated those who had beliefs that differed from their own, and fear, they were afraid the other religions would dominate their own, all combining to form a tragic situation.
[Reply]