After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?-in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? 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.
What is the effect of the oxymoron "Civil Disobedience"?
1. It describes a principle: civilians must use legal action to disobey the will of the majority.
2. It establishes a tone: if a government is uncivilized, it cannot expect citizens to obey the law.
3. It highlights a problem: to be civilized, citizens must conform rather than obey their consciences.
4. It illustrates a theme: standing by one's conscience is more civilized than simply obeying the majority.
1 answer
The most accurate effect of the oxymoron "Civil Disobedience" from the options provided is:
4. It illustrates a theme: standing by one's conscience is more civilized than simply obeying the majority.
This interpretation aligns with the central argument of the passage, which emphasizes the importance of individual conscience over the will of the majority and suggests that true civil behavior involves adhering to a moral compass rather than blindly following laws or majority opinions.
