Week 5

 Do you agree with Thoreau's argument that action according to conscience (i.e moral action) is not compatible with living in a representative democracy where decisions are based on collective agreement?

    Thoreau's essay uses several persuasive arguments to proposition. His most persuasive argument is his detestation of those whom "disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support, are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform." Thoreau implores these conscientious patriots to intellectually secede from the state and refuse to pay taxes. Above all, Thoreau asks, "Do not they stand in the same relation to the State, that the State does to the Union?"

Thoreau's argument rests upon two chief assumptions: people are more likely to obey a government because of coercion. This coercion is so strong because most people are unwilling and unlikely to pay the price (prison) for following their conscience.

I don't agree with Thoreau's argument on a utilitarian level. Democratic societies function by being pluralist and concessionary. Minorities and other lower status individuals must be given as much of a say in their governance in an ideal Democratic society because no election or place is frozen in aspic.

However, on a individualist reading, Thoreau's argument is correct and forever timely. Not only is democracy practically anti conscience and constricts morality, it is structurally designed to coerce conscientious individuals. From majoritarian elections to debt imprisonment, the law is blind towards anyone's morality.

However, choosing how to read this essay is the larger argument in itself.