Using your readings by King, Jr. and Thoreau as a jump off point, please think about what a “citizen”
is. First, define what makes YOU a "good citizen." How would you define a "good citizen" of the
United States? How does Thoreau define a good citizen? Would Martin Luther King, Jr. agree with
your definition, or with Thoreau’s definition? Please explain why. (500 words minimum)
There are many things that define me as a “good citizen.” At this time, I am working toward a college
degree in order to better myself. In doing this I am setting a good example not just for my own children,
but also for anyone who comes in contact with me. I think anything one can do to improve their
intellect, skill, and knowledge also benefits society as a whole. I take care of my home and my
belongings which in turn helps the appearance of my neighborhood. I have ensured that my children
know the difference between right and wrong and that their actions and deeds are what really define
the type of person they are. I make myself available to my kids so that they have a support system
during difficult times. In addition, I’m not afraid to speak out when I see something that I feel is unfair
or unjust. I make an effort to be well-informed of both sides of the discussion for important issues that
impact my community, state and country.
I take pride in what I do and always try to do my best even if my task is challenging. I have tried to instill
these qualities in my children who are going to be the future leaders of our country. I believe that this
type of approach to life is similar to the message that Lyndon B. Johnson delivered to the people of the
United States in his “Great Society Speech.” President Johnson touches on three areas where he
believes we should concentrate our efforts to create this “Great Society”; our cities, countryside and
classrooms. I believe he defined a good citizen when he declared, “… the Great Society, is not a safe
harbor, a resting place, a final objective, a finished work. It is a challenge constantly renewed,
beckoning us toward a destiny where the meaning of our lives matches the marvelous products of our
labor.” I think that a “good citizen” of the United States is really just an extension of an individual that is
a “good citizen” because the collective of all these individuals is what creates a community, society,
country and the world. The improvement of a U.S. citizen helps to drive our country toward more
efficiency, new innovations and ideas. These innovations create business and opportunities for
communities which serve to provide further improvement.
I found that Thoreau defines a good citizen really as someone who practices self-government and is
vocal about letting it be made “known what kind of government would command his respect.” He also
points out that unjust laws exist, but as good citizens we do not necessarily have to obey them. I think
these things really form the philosophy of civil disobedience which is to say, just because laws come
from authority does not imply that they are good or right, and so, as good citizen we are obligated to go
against these unjust laws until the majority sees reason behind your actions. I believe that Martin
Luther King, Jr. would agree with both definitions of freedoms, but more so with Thoreau’s. In King’s
response to the Alabama clergyman who had essentially chastised him for a demonstration, he
expressed the need for direct action in the absence of willing negotiation. He eloquently described how
non-violent direct action, such as the demonstrations in Birmingham, were meant to bring the issue at
hand to the forefront and would create such agitation in the community so that it could no longer be
ignored. This idea is very similar to Thoreau’s thoughts about obeying unjust laws. As citizens we need
to be alert as to how laws affect the minority in a group and safeguard against possible injustices
because one day we may find that we are in the minority group. When that day comes who will be
there to help us in our time of need?
Explain your personal philosophy regarding your individual rights, freedoms, morality, values and
responsibilities, especially to the LAWS, your COMMUNITY, and your COUNTRY. What responsibilities
come with being free? Who decides what these responsibilities are? Do these responsibilities require
enforcement? If so, by whom? (500 words minimum)
I believe that everyone deserves to have equal individual rights in spite of their difference in thought,
race, sex, color, creed, or sexual orientation. To me, freedom is the ability to make uninhibited choices
regardless of the consequences whether they are positive or negative. However, I realize that for this
definition of freedom to be realistic there has to be a proper understanding of the difference between
right and wrong. Otherwise the idea of freedom for one individual would infringe upon the freedoms of
another. I think the key to making this definition of freedom work for everyone is taking ownership or
responsibility for their own actions. Without these distinctions there could only be chaos and anarchy.
The ability to establish boundaries for one’s self is one of the responsibilities required to maintain
freedoms. There are boundaries set for all members of a society which are typically based upon what is
viewed as right and wrong. Along with this, I also think that it is necessary for individuals to recognize
when actions happening around them are morally wrong. However, it’s not enough just to recognize
that an act is wrong, but it also requires having the strength of character to voice this wrongdoing and
withstand any potential backlash from going against the status quo.
I think that these responsibilities are put in place by the communities in which we live. We in turn elect
officials to help enact these responsibilities or laws. When we don’t feel these officials are acting in our
best interests we speak with our votes to find someone who will be able to bring about the change that
we seek. Everywhere there are people who choose not to follow the norms of society. In these cases,
we have to have an enforcer to help bring balance to the community. Ultimately, I believe that the
community is the enforcer of these responsibilities because we act with our votes to create laws that
change with the issues of the times. This is not so say that the government of the country should have
control over the people, but instead it should be left to the smaller states and communities in which
they reside. The states, and as an extension the smaller communities, have their own unique culture
which is defined by the morals of the collective individuals. Because of this a broader government
would not be able to account for all of the nuances and intricacies required to maintain balance and
harmony. Instead, I think that change begins on a smaller scale and will gain in popularity if it is
considered a just cause. The abolition of slavery, the right for women to vote, prohibition of alcohol are
all examples of how opinions and viewpoints have changed and resulted in different a reversal to old
ideas. The issue of same-sex marriage is currently at the forefront of debate. Ultimately, this issue can
only be resolved within the individual communities across the country as it corresponds with their
values.
What should be done with people – preachers, iconoclasts, educators, or anyone else – who
seemingly undermine the values of the society where they live such as Thoreau was doing in New
England, or Martin Luther King, Jr. in the South? What seems to be the proper relation between the
individual and the community, and between the local community and society in the broader sense?
Consider Kay Anderson’s attempt to stop Michael Moore from speaking at UVU a couple of years ago
because “this man does not represent the values of this community.”
I feel that the individuals who seek to bring change to a community should be allowed to share their
message as long as it is not inherently wrong. Again, there is a distinction to be made regarding what is
right and what is wrong. Everyone has their own personal morals they abide by and these help them
form their definitions. From these individual morals I think that a set of ethics is formed by the
businesses and community. There is interconnectedness between the individual, community and
society as a whole. I would like to think that people are capable of being introduced to something new
and different, but still being able to make decisions for themselves as to whether or not they will accept
this new idea and take it into their life, or leave it behind. To me, this type of choice is similar to that
seen in the world of business. If a product, or in this case an idea or action, will only remain available if
people continue to purchase that particular product. So, if the values in a community are strong enough
the idea will be rejected. Perhaps the people who are putting forth an effort to undermine the societal
values of where they live will choose to go to another location to begin a new community similar to
what the Mormon pioneers did when they came to the Salt Lake valley.
The proper role of an individual within a community is to act as a contributor both in their profession
and intellect. I think that Thoreau conveyed the type of relation essential of an individual when he
wrote “[h]e who gives himself entirely to his fellow men appears to them useless and selfish; but he who
gives himself partially to them is pronounced a benefactor and philanthropist.” I believe that the
individual should play an active role within their community. This can be achieved by being aware of the
issues that confront that particular area. In doing this it provides the opportunity to appeal to the
community through means of their talents to bring about change for the greater good. Because
communities have the potential to be very large I think that it takes the effort of many individuals to
tackle separate issues in their own special way. The same type of relation attributed to an individual can
also be applied to the relationship between a local community and society as a whole. The local
community is a contributor to society, but does not give its entire self. To give its whole self would
mean to give up its identity and lose their sense of uniqueness. Again, the local community should be
aware of the current issues at hand and be willing to step in and provide the services in which they
excel. These actions help to further society, and in turn the local communities, and finally the individual.
This trickle down affect is proof of the connection between all the branches of a society.