This essay examines the conflict between civil obedience and moral freedom — encompassing free will and personal conscience — through a comparative analysis of three foundational political texts: Henry David Thoreau's "On the Duty of Civil Disobedience," Martin Luther King Jr.'s "Letter from Birmingham Jail," and Plato's "Crito." The paper argues that Thoreau and King share a humanistic, individualist position that places personal conscience above state authority, while Plato's Socrates upholds the social contract and demands obedience to law even at personal cost. Together, these works illuminate the enduring tension between the obligations citizens owe to government and the moral imperatives that may justify — or even require — defiance.
People in societies, upon establishing institutions that provide and maintain order, unity, and peace, are bound together through an agreement. This agreement, termed the "social contract," binds people together and commits them to the power of the government, wherein part of each individual's free will is surrendered to it. The government acts as an agent — the representative of the people — in order to ensure that all members of society comply with the laws of nature, which humans are under obligation to follow.
In effect, the government plays a vital role in ensuring that peace, unity, and order are established within society. Any deviation or disobedience from the laws imposed by the society can result in punishment of the individual. Indeed, social institutions such as the government have both functions and dysfunctions. The theme of social dysfunction through civil disobedience is thoroughly discussed in the political discourses of writers such as Henry David Thoreau, Martin Luther King Jr., and Plato. This essay analyzes the similarities and differences among the literary works of these three writers, relating their works to the central theme of conflict between civil disobedience and moral freedom — expressed through free will and personal conscience. The comparative analysis that follows establishes that Thoreau's and King's works promote individual free will and personal conscience, in contrast to Plato's pro-government stance in his literary work Crito.
Henry David Thoreau, author of the nineteenth-century discourse entitled On the Duty of Civil Disobedience, argues that the government can be both beneficial and detrimental to the welfare of society. For Thoreau, the government is both "expedient" and "inexpedient," grounded in his belief that "That government is best which governs not at all." This thesis develops from Thoreau's recognition that while the government is functional insofar as it acts as an agent of the society to preserve peace, order, and unity, it is at the same time self-serving and exclusionary. Over time, as society has grown dependent on the government, part of the free will surrendered by each individual through the social contract has been exploited and used to abuse and control the members of society. The result is a form of bondage in which the free will of every individual is neglected and the social contract becomes ineffective:
"Can there not be a government in which the majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? … 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 that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right."
Clearly, Thoreau's stance illustrates that before becoming obedient, law-abiding citizens of the government, individuals must first follow their personal conscience and free will. This position rests on the assumption that members of society possess the right knowledge about truth and have a sense of morality.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s Letter from Birmingham Jail, written in 1963, illustrates an individual's free will and moral conscience — that is, moral freedom — in the face of adversity stemming not only from the government but from American society as a whole. Similar to Thoreau's position that civil obedience is secondary to moral freedom, King criticizes white American society for propagating hatred and prejudice against Black Americans:
"Birmingham is probably the most segregated city in the United States. Its ugly record of police brutality … unjust treatment of Negroes in the courts … unsolved bombings of Negro homes and churches … These are the hard, brutal, unbelievable facts … I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate … who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice …"
"King links civil disobedience to racial justice struggle"
"Plato's Socrates defends obedience to the social contract"
Plato. Crito. Translated by Sanderson Beck.
Thoreau, H. (1849). On the Duty of Civil Disobedience.
You’re 62% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.