On Conscience

Can there not be a government in which the 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.

To paraphrase, I think Thoreau was saying civil disobedience is how we should respond the unjust laws that have not been addressed by conscience.

I was interested in how Thoreau so strongly support conscience as the method by which we judge the government. I feel like a lot of issues are too gray to be dealt with by the simple judge of conscience, especially considering that conscience varies from person to person. It's shaped by experience, and the background of every person. But then he says that's the role of legislators, is to have the final word on the "Is this wrong?" question. It feels like that's where we've ended up as well. Except now every question, even the black and white ones are being debated. If only there was a way to pull through the standstill.

One of the ways would be civil disobedience. By objecting in an uninteruptive way we make our voice heard and not completely ruin our society through violence or upset. And it gets things done.