Civil Obedience and Moral Freedom in Political Thinking

Paper Summary:

The theme of social dysfunction through civil disobedience is thoroughly discussed in political discourses written by famous philosophers and writers like Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King, and Plato. This essay analyzes and studies the similarities and differences among the literary works of these three writers, relating their works to the main theme that studies the conflict between civil disobedience and moral freedom (through free will and personal conscience). The texts that are presented in this paper show a comparative analysis of the writers' works, in which the stance that Thoreau's and Luther's works promote is individual free will and personal conscience, as compared to Plato's pro-government stance in his literary work, "Crito".

From the Paper:

"Thoreau and King's stance regarding the conflict between civil disobedience and moral freedom differs with that of Plato's pro-government/State stance in Crito. Influenced by 19th and 20th century radical thinking, Thoreau and King conduct a more humanistic, yet rational argument for civil disobedience. Plato, on the other hand, subsists to the belief that Laws imposed by the government should be respected, using Law as its subject to bring back the "social contract" agreement, where civil disobedience is equivalent with "overturning" this social contract agreed upon by all members of the society."

More papers on Civil Obedience and Moral Freedom in Political Thinking:

• Essay # 30216 : "Civil Rights and Student Activism in the Sixties"
• Essay # 60120 : "Civil Obedience"
• Argumentative Essay # 91230 : "Civil Obedience in the "Crito"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: