He says “can there be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience?” (76). While both are a way through which people make decisions, using one’s conscience is the only valid way to decide right from wrong, according to Thoreau. One reason is that laws have no inherent goodness, while conscience does. Groups with power determine law, not necessarily groups “most likely to be in the right” (76). Laws, therefore, can be based on any whim that the majority has. In contrast, the life choices prescribed by conscience will be based on a standard of absolute goodness because Thoreau believes that conscience comes from an unchanging and good God. The difference between conscience and law is fundamental—conscience is absolute, while law is …show more content…
Thoreau hits the extreme in convicting the government of using ‘black arts’ to create quasi-men, or men to follow laws unquestioningly (77). However, Thoreau mainly wrote this passage for people who submit only parts of their humanity to the whims of the majority. He says even this is to be avoided. Since people already have the moral decision-making ability, they do not need law to advise them on these issues. This is why Thoreau says “law never made men a whit more just (77). He desires for people to be free from becoming mere tools for the government’s use, and live according to the humanity that God has given every