Ethos In The Works Of Thoreau And The King

While Thoreau certainly uses pathos to influence the reader, his use of it was far less personal and, moreover, less effective than King’s “Letter to a Birmingham Jail”. In paragraph seven, King explains the reason why people who say "wait" do not understand why such a request is unobtainable and impractical. He uses hypothetical and true, personal, anecdotes to strengthen and support his clause. His examples strive to successfully penetrate through the dubiety of his most skeptical readers. In comparison to Thoreau, King also uses loaded words in a more frequent manner throughout his text.

Both Thoreau and King used the same strategies ethos (ethical), logos (logical), and pathos (emotional), but they used it in a very different way. King used pathos referring to him being arrested for not having a proper permit to protest, even though that’s guaranteed in his 1st amendment right, and he talked about his injustices in jail. While in contrast Thoreau explained that the government doesn’t do anything to keep the country free, such as in 1849 education wasn’t a guaranteed right, and slavery in the south was very popular, he does this by saying “It does not” a lot, referring to the government. For logos, Thoreau explained why he didn’t pay the tax because he believed the government gets nothing done on their own, and that the majority of Americans opposed the war, so why

At this point in the narrative he tells readers about an experience he had while observing a woodchuck in the woods while on a walk. He then tells in detail how he wanted to eat this woodchuck in a brutal way. This thought process he was having while observing this animal brought him a better understanding that human beings still have a wild instinct inside of themselves. Which he respected the idea and acknowledged that these instincts still occurred within himself. This experience supported Thoreau belief that hunting/obtaining knowledge on nature was important at an early age.

Thoreau begins by stating that citizens have the right to rebel. He states, “All men recognize the right of revolution; that is, the right to refuse

It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right." (Jacobus, 306). He argues that it is up to each and every individual to stand up for their own rights and know the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong. As said by Thoreau, by committing acts of civil disobedience or peaceful protests, citizens of the nations are able to have their voice to speak up against the wrongdoings of their own government. They bring attention to the more important issues at hand and allow opinions to be formed, and can thus spark change in society.

This shows that the State in Thoreau’s eyes is foolish and ignorant. Not only that, it is stated in part 3 paragraph 9 that the reason he was incarcerated is due to his refusal to pay allegiance to the State. By doing so, Thoreau wants to be a role model for the people around him by quietly declaring “war” with the State. The term war used does not refer to an actual war, but an indirect, non-violent conflict with the State in hopes of changing it. This is also evident in paragraph 13 of the same part when he states that he does not “wish to quarrel with any man or nation...

Henry David Thoreau in “Civil Disobedience” and Martin Luther King, Jr. in “Letter from Birmingham Jail” agree that civil disobedience is necessary if unjust laws are in place. Thoreau and King both write at one point from a jail cell, and both essays are written during a time when they felt there was injustice in the government. Both men realize that there is social injustice taking place in their eras and wanted change to happen.

In the society Steinbeck describes, if one were to disobey the rules, he “had no place in any world, no matter where created” (Steinbeck 266). Even though the families had rights, they seemingly did not have the right to protest if they believed a law was unjust. Because of this, the rulers of this society have all of the power. Individuals have to keep their own beliefs private and must adhere to society’s rules, not matter if they were right or wrong, in fear of being shamed. Comparatively, the very foundation of Thoreau’s beliefs is that humans have the right to rebel against a corrupt state.

He explains that the rules of the government are unjust. Thoreau also brings up the Declaration of Independence in his essay. He encourages people to declare their independence from these unjust laws. In conclusion, Thoreau is fighting against the government for his own moral laws.

While, Thoreau spoke to politicians, who because of their involvement in the government, would be uninclined to agree with his refusal to pay a tax. Despite this, both men addressed their fellow American citizens as an implied audience. One can understand that Thoreau is speaking to citizens because he often points out the injustices the government commits against it’s people. One example is when Thoreau writes, “Why does it not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its faults, and do better than it would have them?" (Shea, 2008).

A huge focal point in the essay are the poll taxes. He absolutely did not and would not pay his poll taxes. Similarly, his poll taxes had not been paid in six years. Thoreau does has some interesting reasoning behind why he refused to pay the tax. First, he believed the money was going to fund the Mexican war.

Thoreau uses an aggressive and assertive tone to call his readers to action. He starts his essay by attacking the government and criticizing many of its policies. He declares, “That government is best which governs not at all” (WOI, 305). He goes on to write, “yet this government never of itself furthered… has not sometimes got in its way” (WOI, 306). Thoreau perceives the government as being useless.

Although I do agree with Thoreau throughout most of his essay, my thinking does differ in the instances of going against the law regardless of what the law is. As an individual, I do feel a disjoint

Yet these two pieces are connected by a central purpose: they argue that United States citizens are being treated unfairly by their own government and they defend the practice of civil disobedience. Indeed, both Thoreau and King wrote their pieces to argue for the effectiveness of civil disobedience, but King wrote his letter to respond to racist civil laws, while Thoreau wrote his essay in response to fundamental flaws in the institutions of government. A key difference in the purpose

Firstly, Thoreau, in his Civil Disobedience essay, presented his view of authority in an abstract manner; he placed his emphasis upon the system as a whole rather than specific parts when arguing. Specifically, he only discussed about the government and the role of government. In contrast, King, in his Letter from Birmingham Jail, conveyed to the readers his view of authority in a more concrete way—the types of laws. Nonetheless, although Thoreau and King employed different methods to present their ideas, they share a similarity: every government should represent everyone no matter to which groups they