ABSTRACT
Henry David Thoreau’s concept of civil disobedience has become important in debates on political obligation within political philosophy. Political philosophy and its proponents are generally hostile toward the idea of civil disobedience, and even the influential American moral philosopher John Rawls, a leading figure in the debate, adopted only a qualified acceptance of it in certain narrowly defined cases. He certainly does not advocate refusing to pay taxes or uphold the prospect of violent resistance against political authority, as Thoreau does in Civil Disobedience. In Civil Disobedience, Thoreau’s primary intention was not to speak to a particular scholarly audience, but to encourage his fellow conscientious citizens to resist the government and refuse to support its unjust social practices. Recently, those working in the political obligation strand of analytic political philosophy have offered the most coherent response to Thoreau’s challenge, even if their work is not directly related to Paley’s thinking.
