Summary Of Tocqueville

Great Essays
3

Tocqueville

The Danger of a Non-Violent Oppressor

According to Tocqueville there is so little freedom of thought and debate in America, because the majority controls the minds and actions of the entire population. Unlike in an absolute monarchy, the American majority ideals penetrate the morals of each individual causing them to not want to behave outside of the norm. Americans refrain from expressing different ideas because they fear ostracism - in this system, even when people agree with the minority, they avoid associating themselves with it for fear of exclusion from society - thus the minority does not grow. The majority has so much influence because they make up every section of the government and exert their power by infiltrating
…show more content…
Morality is inherent in mankind, whereas justice is created to conform to the beliefs of the people. The majority decides what is right or wrong until it creates a justice system to govern morality based on the foundation of justice they created. As Tocqueville states in Democracy in America, “there exists a general law which has been made, or at least adopted, not only by the majority of this or that people but by the majority of men. This law is justice” (107). From the influence of the decided upon morality- Americans went on to construct their way of judging morality - people blindly follow this system because Americans have been lead to believe the system of justice we have actually does judge morality and thus disagreeing with this the system is challenging morality. Arguing morality is an offense in itself because people strongly believe in the binary of morality. Again, justice is a human construct in this case because what is just or not is decided solely by the majority - a group that creates the very morals of those within it by allowing them to feel heard and while constricting the thought of those who oppose by making them feel other than. Americans created their legal system based on their other creation - …show more content…
Tocqueville claims that to be unlawful, one is opposing the majority’s idea of justice not real morality. Real morality and justice are inherent in humankind whereas what governs America is constructed by humans (107). Because Americans feel they have played a role in the refinement of the laws, they feel represented - thus they actually believe in the laws. This is dangerous because when everyone enforces the laws (not just the government's appointed justice keepers) everyone is forced into believing them - no one can think outside morality without being condemned for disagreeing with a government they are supposedly represented by. The idealization of the American government by the people within, forces people to agree with them because to disagree would be to disagree with the majority and the majority has the power to ostracize them. Fear of exclusion from society inhibits the desire to be a nonconforming individual

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Man is born with a consciousness of right, wrong, and order of the world. It is out of these nature-given morals that government is born. Therefore, should government not also have morals as if it were a living and breathing man? The drawback is that government makes mistakes just like man. Some laws are just so unacceptable that is not only the people’s right, but duty to disobey them.…

    • 1023 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    While the anti federalists only focus on what they do not like about the current government. The anti federalists fail to realize that the legislature of the federal government cooperate together from different branches that they created themselves. Each branch of the federal government check the other to make sure only the most important and efficient laws actually pass. The judicial branch checks and makes sure that laws are interpreted the way they are supposed to. This branch does not work to cooperate with the other branches to take over the United States and gain complete control of everyone inside the country.…

    • 856 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    TRN160 – Critical Summary In Hart’s article, he mentions two types of theses: The moderate thesis and the extreme thesis. The moderate thesis, discussed by Patrick Devlin, claims that: “shared morality is the cement of society” and “without it there would be aggregates of individuals, but no society” (48) Furthermore, it claims that any deviation from social morality is a crime against society as a whole thus the state has the authority to correct this deviation through the law. The extreme thesis claims that: “the enforcement of morality is regarded as a thing of value” (49) which is not a tool used by the government to justify creating certain laws. The major difference between the two theses is that the moderate thesis gives power to the…

    • 768 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    How Did John Locke Rebel

    • 672 Words
    • 3 Pages

    John Locke and Thomas Hobbes are both very influential thinkers of the middle 1600’s. Both Locke and Hobbes had two different viewpoints on people and society. John Locke insisted that when the government violated individual rights, people are permitted to rebel. However, Thomas Hobbes thought otherwise. Hobbes believed that people had no right to be rebellious.…

    • 672 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Henry David Thoreau, in his essay “Civil Disobedience” argues that American citizens should not be loath to disobey their corrupt and useless government, using metaphor as a rhetorical device to prove his point and provide a call to action for readers. In the essay, Thoreau describes the government as a corrupt, immoral, and often useless agent, and strongly criticizes the American population for following it so blindly. He encourages readers to act in protest of their unjust government, urging them to act with their consciences and not based on what the law dictates; he also insists that they engage in civil disobedience, and refuse to pay certain taxes. By using metaphor in the essay, Thoreau makes the piece more readable and relatable,…

    • 1037 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    People don’t like being judged, which results in people not taking responsibility for their actions. I disagree with how Fromm relies on the comparison of our options to our humanistic conscious, morals and the laws of humanity to guide our actions. What if our values are subpar? If someone has little to no morality and believes that he is bettering the future of humanity with his actions, then according to Fromm’s logic, they have justified themselves by obeying their personal morals and how they interpreted the laws of humanity. This could mean that a seral killer felt that his actions were justified as an act of freedom against authority.…

    • 1245 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He notes how any society will have certain standards ingrained within its members and that these ingrained morals cannot simply just be forced aside when confronted with a separate society with differing morals. (Williams, 21) Rachels’ relativism argument and Williams’ counter argument are examples of philosophies without a universal moral truth and an argument that debases it. The case of Rachels’ relativism is a little strange in that, while the theory claims to be spreading tolerance of other cultures, the lack of a universal standard to base the moral judgements upon brings up the question of how one would judge their own moral standards. This is especially potent in cases where a culture permits acts such as conquest and genocide-acts that obviously will bring harm to others. The Nazi regime is a prime example of this.…

    • 1298 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Great Essays

    The first problem is that it does not satisfy Kant’s first version of a categorical imperative, the Principle of Universality, which states that one should always act as if their actions will become universal law. People would not appreciate other countries using those techniques on United States’ citizens. In fact, there have been situations of a similar nature in which Americans spoke negatively on the treatment of their fellow citizens. The second problem is that the chosen course of action does not satisfy Kant’s second version, Respect For All Persons, either. This version states that human beings are required to treat other humans with respect because they are rational humans just like us who have an intrinsic worth that other animals do not.…

    • 1558 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Great Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Individualism allows Americans to isolate themselves from the mass of those similar; individualism allows for the creation of small societies for personal use, which leads Americans to abandon society. While individualism and social isolation can be problematic for the existence of a democracy, associations can help aid this condition of equality. Associations are an important characteristic of American culture and its private citizens. Tocqueville observed that belonging to one or more association was one of the more pronounced activities in American culture. Associations help develop solidarity among American citizens, Tocqueville emphasized associations because he believed they provided a crucial characteristic among American citizens in fighting against the problems of individualism.…

    • 758 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Thoreau uses pathos to make his impact stronger and to get his audience to see the government from his perspective and enact change. Patriotism is used in this next example because he is ultimately giving his audience the choice to act against the government by grouping them all as citizens (Heinrichs). Guilt is an emotion that Thoreau depends on this when he states that “a wise man will not leave the right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of the majority” (Thoreau). He uses this to make people feel guilty about letting the majority decide on issues and not taking action themselves. Even though the government is supposed to be guided by the majority, Thoreau expresses that the elite politicians ultimately have the final say, and even if the majority is powerful it does not reflect the rightness or what the minority wants (McElroy).…

    • 1377 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays