Questions

Consider Bentham’s attack on Jeﬀerson’s principle that “all men are created equal” (assume for the sake of argument that “men” here is not gender-exclusive): “now, for the ﬁrst time, we learn, that a child, at the moment of his birth, has the same quantity of natural power as the parent, the same quantity of political power as the magistrate” (p. 120). How might Jonathan Edwards defend the principle against Bentham? That is: in what sense would Edwards defend a principle like this, and how would he explain that the principle, so understood, is not subject to Bentham’s objection? Would or would not Edwards’s version of the principle be suﬃcient for the purposes Jeﬀerson wants it for?

Emerson says that “the social state,” “the state of society,” is actually a divided state in which the individual human beings are like limbs that “have suﬀered amputation from the trunk,” whereas a state of true “union” would be one in which each individual was “sovereign” (see The American Scholar, pp. 4–5 and p. 30). This is the opposite of what you might think! Explain what Emerson means. How might this make possible a reconciliation between the demands for (ultimately, individual) independence and freedom, on the one hand, and (particular) union, on the other? Does the orator referred to on p. 22 exhibit a possible mode of legitimate political leadership?

According to Martineau, the principles of the Declaration of Independence include or imply (or perhaps presuppose?) that “the majority will be always in the right.” Here, of course, “majority” means a majority of the people — hence the principle is meaningless unless we already know who belongs to “the people.” How might Martineau respond? That is: a majority of what people must consent to a given government? Does this reply completely solve the problem? How might Thoreau respond (thinking here mostly about what he says in “Civil Disobedience”)? In what sense, and under what conditions, would he admit that the principle is correct?

In the third paragraph of Walden ch. 5 (“Solitude”), p. 84 in the Dover edition, Thoreau writes: “There is commonly suﬃcient space about us. Our horizon is never quite at our elbows. The thick wood is not just at our door, nor the pond, but somewhat is always clearing, familiar and worn by us, appropriated and fenced in some way, and reclaimed from Nature.” Compare Emerson: “So much only of life as I know by experience, so much of the wilderness have I vanquished and planted, or so far have I extended my being, my dominion” (The American Scholar, p. 15). There seems to be some diﬀerence between their points of view about wilderness. How might that lead to a diﬀerent understanding of what it means to “settle” in (what Thoreau calls) “the only true America” (ch. 10, “Baker Farm,” paragraph 3, p. 133)? You may also want to consider what Thoreau says about the path he wore from his door to the pond-side (ch. 18, “Conclusion,” paragraph 4, p. 209).