When it comes to the pretention of Civil Disobedience and what can be seen as acts of indirect and direct civil disobedience. H.A. Bedau and Henry David Thoreau come to mind because of how they both saw things in different light but at a meaningful level they both thought the same about the government even through they expressed there ideals in completely different ways. Their ideas cross on many different paths as to which even Bedau talks about Thoreau in his essay in regards to being “responsible” for your actions. The main premise of Bedau’s argument in his essay of “civil disobedience and personal responsibility for justice” is to compare the idea of what is civil disobedience and who is responsible for the actions. Bedau spends a great …show more content…
Bedau directly correlates the idea that those who commit civil disobedience must do so in a direct manner and not by means of indirect methods. Thoreau’s essay explains why he chose not to pay taxes because he didn’t condone the actions of the government and didn’t want to partake in supporting the injustice that is the government. They together believe that the government is to blame for a lot of unjust acts that are committed and the government should be intern responsible for the outcome. They have many ideas that are argumentatively the same yet a lot of theological differences that set them apart.
Henry David Thoreau wrote the essay “civil Disobedience” to shed light to his perspectives on government, war, and injustice. Thoreau starts first off by talking about how the government isn’t righteous in anyway and that the best form of government is one that governs …show more content…
Thoreau was under the notion that if he merely didn’t partake in the injustice that it wasn’t his responsibility for the outcome. Thoreau supported his fellow man and neighbors but he wouldn’t pay the high tax for the war that was going on. The indirect methods that Thoreau used to be disobedient to the government he states as “…I am doing my part to educate my fellow-countrymen now.” (Pg. 44 Thoreau) Whereas Bedau thought that indirect civil disobedience was an act of rebellion and in no retrospect a justifiable action because it wasn’t a more direct plan of action. Bedau writes “…so long as our government obeys the mandate of the constitution’ and provides full ‘facility and protection’ for dissent within the law. Therefore, indirect civil disobedience ‘is never justified in our nation.”(Pg. 55 Bedau) The theology Bedau uses is one based on directness. These men had so many ideas that correlated in the same direction but the justification difference is to great to confirm that they thought the same. Bedau tends to tear down Thoreau’s principle and to which he states, “It fails to bring out explicitly the nature of the linkage between individual and the government in virtue of which vicarious responsibility is established. And it fails to contain injunction to act out of concern for ones responsibilities.” (Pg. 60 Bedau) Bedau believes