Rachal LFBJ ABCBC In The Letter From Birmingham Jail by Martin Luther King Jr, the values of civil disobedience is presented through Logos and allusions. In the text it states, “In your statement you asserted that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But can this assertion be logically made?
Antigone and Martin Luther King Jr. are both very important figures when it comes to discussing the topic of civil disobedience; both fought for what they believed to be right and against the injustice of the state. Antigone went against the edict of the king and buried her brother and Martin Luther King Jr. broke the law to try to end segregation and racism in America. Even though some similarities can be found between the two, ultimately they went about civil disobedience in very different ways. Antigone’s method was personal and selfish and she took an extremely defiant and rash stance while martin Luther King’s approach was more analytical and thought out. It is for these reasons that I believe King’s method was more successful and is the
One his theories, stated in his book called Leviathan said that people are not able rule themselves because of how selfish mankind is and they need to be ruled by an iron fist. His political theory was that was also stated in Leviathan was that we should respect government authority under all circumstances to avoid violence. Hobbes was scared of the outcome of the social contract which meant people could get rid of the government if they were unhappy with what they were getting. In order to make well with the social contract he states in Leviathan that people should be completely obedient to the government. His reasoning was that if there was no government, there would be chaos.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws.” If Martin Luther King Jr. and countless others had not protested during the Civil Right movement there would still be segregation and inequality. Without a doubt, there are times when it is justifiable to break a law in a democratic society. If rights are being denied, if the majority feel it is an unjust law, or even if the minorities (being that they are experts on the subject) feel it is wrong as well. Despite the social contract, it’s a citizen’s responsibility to go against the government at times.
Americans in our world today believe that “ minor” laws do not mean anything, but it is the “minor” laws that lead you to be a real criminal or lawbreaker. Frank Trippett argues in his passage, A Red Light for Scofflaws, that scofflaws should be stopped and be shown that a minor law is just as important as a violent crime. The author supports his argument by giving reasoning why people would think minor laws are not a huge deal. The author’s purpose is to show the reader that any laws against littering, speeding, or noise pollution should be serious and not treated by scofflaws. The author creates an objective tone for the people who are interested in any law-and-order.
First of all, the checks and balances guards against tyranny because if we don't stay in check someone might gain too much power. This is very bad because then if they have all the power they want they can do pretty much whatever they want. Many people would end up not agreeing to the laws they make this would basically guarantee a tyranny. The next reason is because checks keep a strong government. An example is without keeping check then the government wouldn't be as strong because of having multiple people with power there would only be one.
Unless of course, this expression is inciting violent or illegal behaviour, or threatening others, in which case it is directly harmful and should therefore be prohibited. I think J.S. Mill would agree with me on these points as he states “the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” (Mill, J.S.,1978). Joel Feinberg, who also had very influential views on the Freedom of Speech debate, may respond to Mills view and propose that the Harm Principle is not enough: “In some instances, Feinberg suggests, we also need an offense principle that can act as a guide to public censure. The basic idea is that the harm principle sets the bar too high
King makes it clear that there are specific circumstances that advocate towards civil disobedience. Keeping this in mind, it is essential that citizens are given the opportunity to be involved in legal matters, such as laws and defying the law in an effort to improve the state. However, in the event that civil disobedience is necessary King emphasizes that citizens must comprehend the difference between just and unjust laws, as well as partake in disobedience through civil means. On the other hand, Socrates believes no laws that are worth breaking. His reasonings support his overall idea that an unjust law or act, does not defend retaliating through unjustly means.
Another aspect that angered Thoreau was the fact that “Unjust laws exist: shall we be content to obey them, or shall we endeavor to amend them” (393). This again goes along with the belief that man has the ability to know what is just, given by God, and does not need a government to decide for them how to live, especially when those ways are not true. In summation, Thoreau wants the government to lose the power it holds over the people so they can practice the morality and justice they know to be true due to man's connection with the
Because in a true democracy, it is the responsibility of the citizens to disobey the laws that aren’t truly aiding in the progressive nature of society. A democracy can’t be effective without active participation. With that, Martin Luther King Jr.’s Letter from Birmingham Jail is a cornerstone in how we should approach the discussion of whether it is or isn’t reasonable to disobey a law. King agrees with St. Augustine in that “an unjust law is no law at all.” This enforces the idea that an unjust law is virtually not present because it is inevitably meant to be broken.
The main similarity in the writings of Thomas Jefferson and Henry David Thoreau is the idea of revolution against an abusive government. The main difference is the context in which each document was written, the Declaration of Independence as the colonies were rebelling against Great Britain and forming their own government, and Civil Disobedience as criticisms of the government developed within nearly seventy-five years after the signing of the Declaration. Both Jefferson and Thoreau share ideas of revolution, although overthrowing the government is seen in many cases as illegal. Both documents share a common theme of revolution, and both authors believe the best way to move toward a better government is civil disobedience. Jefferson and Thoreau believe that whether it is the struggle for independence or being freed from injustices of the government, civil disobedience and revolution are necessary in order to live in a society based on freedom.
The government's flawed state can be corrected by the action of an individual. Henry David Thoreau’s Civil Disobedience heavily reinforces this idea by presenting novel concepts regarding the role, responsibilities, and options of individuals, as they pertain to government, throughout the course of the text. The text was written in 1894 during the time of the Mexican American war when the US government, and the people it represented, found itself in a turbulent, uncertain state. Thoreau’s mission was to inform other transcendentalists and civilians in the United States about the actions they could and should have taken against government when unacceptable forms of rule arose. Although many Americans believed achieving reform was impossible through the actions of individuals, Thoreau’s belief was that independent and just strides could be enough to make considerable change; this becomes clear when Thoreau says, “It is not as important that many should be as good as you, as that may be some absolute goodness, for that will leaven the lump”
Civil Disobedience: Righting the Wrong The foundation of civil disobedience is rooted in the concept of moral principal. When existing laws or accepted social behavior are viewed as being unjust, discriminatory or otherwise considered to be morally unfair, many citizens are compelled to take action in an effort to affect change. In 1849 Thoreau wrote about civil disobedience in his work titled On the Duty of Civil Disobedience. Thoreau believed that a government with too much control minimizes the ability of the people to exercise their own judgment. He claims, “That government is best which governs least.”
The individual's relationship to the state is a concept often entertained abstractly; at variance with this is Civil Disobedience, which analyzes Thoreau's first direct experience with state power in his brief 1846 imprisonment. Thoreau metaphorically detailed his search for virtue in the quote, "The finest qualities of our nature, like the bloom on fruits, can be preserved only by the most delicate handling. Yet we do not treat ourselves nor one another thus tenderly." (Thoreau 8) In Civil Disobedience Thoreau as earnest seeker and flawed captive of the conscience concertedly attempts to correct this shortcoming within the context of slavery and the Mexican-American War.
To Americans and many others around the world, the U.S. is the face of what should be a “free society,” not including every society’s minor flaws. Maybe it’s because I’m barely entering the brink of my social awareness as a U.S. citizen or maybe is it more due to recent threats to our freedom as Americans, but now more than in the past decade or so, the media has brought the image of huge protests, riots, and demonstrations into the spotlight. And unfortunately, more often than not, many of these events result in violence, aggression, and opposition. Nonetheless, people’s intentions and visions of victory surely do not aim to end in chaos and harm to our societies.